Public Document Pack
Customers and Corporate Directorate Linda Fisher, Deputy Chief Executive Governance & Committee Services Number One Riverside, Smith Street, Rochdale, OL16 1XU
Phone: 01706 647474 Website: www.rochdale.gov.uk To: All Members of the Heywood Township Enquiries to: Gary Finch Committee Telephone: 01706 924817 Date: 4th July 2014
Dear Councillor
Heywood Township Committee
You are requested to attend the meeting of the Heywood Township Committee to be held in Phoenix Centre - L/Cpl Stephen Shaw MC Way, Heywood, OL10 1LR on Monday, 14th July 2014 commencing at 6.30 pm.
The agenda and supporting papers are attached.
If you require advice on any agenda item involving a possible Declaration of Interest which could affect your right to speak and/or vote, please refer to the Code of Conduct or contact the Monitoring Officer or Deputies or staff in the Governance and Committee Services Team at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting.
Yours Faithfully
Linda Fisher Deputy Chief Executive
Heywood Township Committee Membership 2014/15 Councillor Jacqueline Beswick Councillor Raymond Dutton Councillor Susan Emmott Councillor Colin Lambert Councillor Alan McCarthy Councillor Liam O'Rourke Councillor Linda Robinson Councillor Peter Rush Councillor Carol Wardle
Rochdale Borough Council
HEYWOOD TOWNSHIP COMMITTEE
14th July 2014 at 6.30 pm
Phoenix Centre - L/Cpl Stephen Shaw MC Way, Heywood, OL10 1LR
A G E N D A
Apologies for Absence Civic Prayers 1. Declarations of Interest 1 - 3 Members must indicate at this stage any items on the agenda in which they must declare an interest. Members must verbally give notice of their interest at the meeting and complete the form attached with this agenda.
Members are also advised to take advice with regard to any matter where there is potential bias or predetermination in any business to be considered at the meeting and whether they should take part in decision making at the meeting.
Members are reminded that, in accordance with the Localism Act 2011 and the Council's adopted Code of Conduct, they must declare the nature of any discloseable pecuniary interest; personal interest and/or prejudicial interest required of them and, in the case of any discloseable pecuniary interest or prejudicial interest, withdraw from the meeting during consideration of the item, unless permitted otherwise within the Code of Conduct. 2. Open Forum (6.30-7.00pm) 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. 3. Heywood Township Committee 4 - 7 To consider the minutes of the meeting of the Heywood Township Committee held on the 9th June 2014. 4. Heywood Township Delegated Sub Committee 8 - 9 To note the minutes of the Heywood Township Delegated Sub- Committee held on the 1 st July 2014. 5. Budget 2015/16 to 2017/18 Guidelines and Timetable 10 - 20 6. Heywood Station Conservation Area Director of Economy and Environment to report. 7. Armed Forces Community Covenant, WW1 Commemorations 21 - 24 and Armed Forces Fund Report
8. Section 106 - Open Space Director of Economy and Environment to report. 9. Need for Additional Secondary School Places 2015-2024 25 - 60 10. Exclusion of Press and Public To consider excluding the press and public from the meeting during consideration of the following item of business in accordance with the provisions of Section 100A (4) of the Local Government Act 1972, as amended. 11. Rationalisation of the Investment Portfolio - Disposal of Under- 61 - 100 Performing Garage Sites 12. Rationalisation of the Investment Portfolio - Disposal of 101 - 118 Residential Ground Rents
Page 1 Page
Agenda Item 1
DECLARATION OF INTERESTS
IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CODE OF CONDUCT ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL ON 25 TH JULY 2012, MEMBERS ARE REQUIRED TO DECLARE DISCLOSABLE PECUNIARY INTERESTS, PERSONAL INTERESTS AND PREJUDICIAL INTERESTS (LISTED ON THEIR REGISTER OF INTERESTS).
MEMBERS SHOULD REFER TO THE CODE OF CONDUCT AND/OR THE MONITORING OFFICER AND/OR THEIR DECLARATION FOR FURTHER GUIDANCE
MEETING AND DATE Indicate either Nature of Interest • Discloseable Pecuniary Interest OR ……………………………. • Personal Interest OR • Personal and Prejudicial interest Agenda item
Page 2 Page
Signed………………………………………………………………………………………… Please print name…………………………………………………………………………………………..
IF A MEMBER HAS A DISCLOSEABLE PECUNIARY INTEREST THAT HAS NOT BEEN INCLUDED ON THEIR REGISTER SUBMISSION, THEY ARE REQUIRED BY LAW TO UPDATE THEIR REGISTER ENTRY WITHIN 28 DAYS. FAILURE TO PROVIDE PROPER NOTIFICATION IS A CRIMINAL OFFENCE.
THIS FORM, INCLUDING ‘NIL’ ENTRIES, MUST BE GIVEN TO THE GOVERNANCE AND COMMITTEE OFFICER NO LATER THAN AT THE END OF THE MEETING Summary of discloseable pecuniary interests, personal interests and prejudicial interests.
Disclosable pecuniary interests A ‘disclosable pecuniary interest’ is an interest of yourself, or of your partner if you are aware of your partner's interest, within the descriptions set out in the table below. "Partner" means a spouse or civil partner, or a person with whom you are living as husband or wife, or a person with whom you are living as if you are civil partners.
Subject Description Employment, office, Any employment, office, trade, profession or vocation carried on for profit trade, profession or or gain vocation Sponsorship Any payment or provision of any other financial benefit (other than from the Council) made or provided within the 12 month period prior to notification of the interest in respect of any expenses incurred by you in carrying out duties as a member, or towards your election expenses. Contracts Any contract made between you or your partner (or a body in which you or your partner has a beneficial interest) and the Council - (a) under which goods or services are to be provided or works are to be executed: and (b) which has not been fully discharged. Land Any beneficial interest in land which is within the area of the Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council. Licences Any licence (alone or jointly with others) to occupy land in the area of the Borough for a month or longer. Corporate Tenancies Any tenancy where (to your knowledge) - (a) the landlord is the Council: and (b) the tenant is a body in which you or your partner has a beneficial interest. Securities Any beneficial interest in securities of a body where - (a) that body (to your knowledge) has a place of business or land in the area of the Borough; and (b) either – (i) the total nominal value of the securities exceeds £25,000 or one hundredth of the total issued share capital of that body; or (ii) if the share capital of that body is of more than one class, the total nominal value of the shares of any one class in which you or your partner has a beneficial interest exceeds one hundredth of the total issued share capital of that class.
Personal Interests You have a personal interest in any business of the authority where it relates to or is likely to affect - (a) any body of which you are in a position of general control or management and to which you are appointed or nominated by your authority; (b) any body - (i) exercising functions of a public nature; (ii) directed to charitable purposes; or (iii) one of whose principal purposes includes the influence of public opinion or policy (including any political party or trade union), of which you are in a position of general control or management; (c) the interests of any person from whom you have received a gift or hospitality with an estimated value of at least £25.
Prejudicial Interests Where you have a personal interest you also have a prejudicial interest in that business where the interest is one which a member of the public with knowledge of the relevant facts would reasonably regard as so significant that it is likely to prejudice your judgement of the public interest and where that business - (a) Affects your financial position or the financial position of a person or body described above; or (b) Relates to the determining of any approval, consent, licence, permission or registration in relation to you or any person or body described above.
MEMBERS ARE ADVISED TO REFER TO THE FULL DESCRIPTIONS CONTAINED IN THE COUNCIL’S CODE OF CONDUCT ADOPTED ON 25 TH JULY 2012. Page 3 Agenda Item 1a
Subject: Heywood Station Conservation Area Status: For Publication
Report to : Heywood Township Committee Date: 14th July 2014
Cabinet Member: Cabinet Member for Public Health and & Regulation
Report of: Director - Economy & Environment Author : Kerrie Smith
Author Email: [email protected] Tel: Tel: 01706 924352
Comments from Statutory Section 151 Officer Officers: Monitoring Officer Key Decision: Forward Plan/Notice Special Urgency General Exception
1 Purpose of Report
1.1 To inform the Township Committee of the results of consultation on the extension of the Heywood Station Conservation Area and heritage-led regeneration proposals.
1.2 To update Township Committee on progress related to the heritage-led regeneration proposals in light of the above and other relevant developments.
1.3 To recommend the designation of extensions to the Heywood Station Conservation Area as set out in this report.
2 Recommendations
2.1 To note the consultation responses to the proposals to extend the Heywood Station Conservation Area and proposals for heritage-led regeneration.
2.2 To note the update on proposals for heritage-led regeneration.
2.3 To consider the special architectural and historic interest of the proposed conservation area, as delineated by the boundary shown in appendix 1.
2.4 To determine that there is special architectural and historic interest, the character and appearance of which it is desirable to preserve or enhance; and
2.5 In light of 2.3 and 2.4 above, to resolve to designate the extended Heywood Station Conservation Area taking into account other relevant factors, including the consequences of designation (see appendix 3)
Page 4
2.6 To note the buildings and features identified as being of local importance during the appraisal process.
2.7 To note for information the intention to present further reports to Township Members in relation to investment in the East Lancashire railway and the extension of the heritage railway to link to mainline services at Castleton
Reason for recommendation
2.8 The proposed extended Heywood Station Conservation Area is an area of historic and architectural interest worthy of preservation or enhancement, as demonstrated in the Heywood Station Conservation Area Appraisal attached to the report.
2.9 The consultation process demonstrated interest in the railway and proposals for the Conservation Area with no objections to the extended designation recorded.
3 Background
3.1 The Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 imposes a duty on local planning authorities to survey and keep under review their district for ‘areas which are of special architectural or historic interest, the character of which it is desirable to preserve or enhance’, and to designate those areas as Conservation Areas. This duty is an ongoing requirement of local authorities.
3.2 A report on Heywood Station Conservation Area was presented to Township on 5 th November 2012 which sought Member approval to carry out consultation on extensions to the conservation area, a draft conservation area appraisal and proposals for regeneration including visitor and learning opportunities via a Heritage Lottery Fund (HLF) bid linked to the improvement of visitor facilities for passengers and visitors to the East Lancashire Railway at Heywood Station.
3.3 Following Township’s approval of the consultation, Council Officers have continued to work with representatives of the East Lancashire Railway Company to further develop and consult upon proposals for the improvement of visitor facilities and to support heritage led regeneration within the Heywood Station Conservation Area focusing on the asset that is the heritage railway. A meeting has been held between the East Lancashire Railway and Sara Hilton, Head of the Heritage Lottery Fund in the North West to discuss proposals for the regeneration and improvement of Heywood Station to include the installation of a café coach, educational facilities, improved signage and public realm. Consultation letters were sent to all properties within the proposed conservation area regarding the proposed extensions and draft appraisal, and inviting them to a Consultation Day at the Station on 27 th July which coincided with the 1968 End of Steam Festival. The Draft Conservation Area Appraisal was available at Heywood Library, Number One Riverside and on the Council’s website from 17 th July 2013 until 16 th September 2013; an extended consultation period reflecting its timing within the summer holiday season. A summary of consultation responses in included in appendix 2.
3.4 With the financial support of the East Lancashire Railway Trust and Heywood Township, the East Lancashire Railway Company have acquired a coach, which is currently being refitted and painted in the railway’s Buckley Wells Workshop to create a permanent flexible café / refreshment / classroom coach at Heywood Station. It is hoped that this can be made available on site by the autumn of 2014.
Page 5 3.5 Further proposals are being developed by Officers, in conjunction with representatives of the East Lancs railway, in the form of a Masterplan for the station area which will form the basis of further Township reports. It is hoped that these will then form the basis of a community led ‘Our Heritage’ bid for HLF funding. The Railway Company has recently acquired a redundant footbridge from the Llangollen Railway, for use at Heywood. The footbridge will serve three purposes, it will restore the historic footbridge link between the station and Sefton Street, provide a viewing / photography platform for visitors and it will increase the visibility of the railway from Manchester Road. Officers and the Railway Company are assessing the costs associated with restoration and the installation of this footbridge at Heywood Station to inform future funding bids.
3.6 The Council is not being asked to contribute to the cost of capital work at this stage. The proposal is to submit a funding bid to the Heritage Lottery Fund, part of which would fund the refurbishment and installation of the footbridge. Depending on the success of the bid and/or cost of the work, the Council may be asked to contribute in financial or other ways to support any bid but this would form a separate report to Heywood Township/Cabinet at the relevant time The conservation area appraisal has been completed within Planning Services existing budget. Feasibility work is being undertaken in house by the East Lancashire Railway Company and RMBC. The Manchester Road feasibility study to open up access into the station from Manchester Road and improve connections between the station and Heywood Town Centre will be funded from ELR PIF funding.
3.7 Feasibility work by both the Council and the Railway Company has been continuing on the installation of a rail wagon exhibition and a children’s play area on the site. It is recognised the station is lacking visual presence both from Manchester Road and from Green Lane. As referred to above, the feasibility of allowing vehicular access into the station through the reopening of Railway Street is being explored by the Council’s Highways service and will be presented to Members for consideration. This will provide greater accessibility and linkage between the station and Heywood Town Centre. Options to increase parking around the station for visitors and to also improve accessibility and signage from Green Lane will form the basis of the Masterplan. This will form the basis of further reports to the Township as and when options can be presented to Members for consideration. These works and the delivery of the buffet coach and educational facility on the site may require planning applications to be submitted and determined by the Council in due course. The access needs of disabled people will be taken into account in the design of public realm interventions and the development of activities.
3.8 Feasibility work is being carried out by the Council and partners from the East Lancashire Railway Company and Trust, Bury Transport Museum and Link4Life, to develop and educational programme for Heywood Station, this programme would be integral to any future Heritage Lottery Fund bid. A summary of the proposed bid is included in Appendix 4.
3.9 Identifying and understanding the heritage resource is a vital first step to developing funding bids from heritage organisations such as the Heritage Lottery Fund. Through desk-based research and an assessment of the historic built environment, the conservation area appraisal for the Heywood Station Conservation Area has been finalised. The attached document sets out the special significance of the conservation area:
In summary, the significance of the Heywood Station Conservation Area lies in the fascinating story of economic growth as an early transportation terminus and of the local relationship between the canal and railway that was illustrative of the wider
Page 6 changes modernising British transport in the 19th Century, as witnessed in the historic built environment.
3.10 The appraisal will support any future funding bids and inform planning decisions within the Heywood Station Conservation Area. It demonstrates the proposed Heywood Station Conservation is an area of historic and architectural interests, which it is desirable to preserve or enhance.
3.11 The proposed extensions to the Conservation Area are minor and other areas, including the previously proposed extension covering 1-15 Manchester Road, which do not have a strong connection to the railway and canal heritage have not been included.
Alternatives considered:
3.12 Not designating the proposed extensions to the Heywood Station Conservation Area would exclude areas of historic and architectural interest related to the station from the designated conservation area and therefore would not support holistic consideration and planning of the Heywood Station area and would leave areas of historic and architectural interest vulnerable to insensitive development.
3.13 Not developing heritage-led regeneration proposals for the heritage resource would be a lost economic and educational opportunity.
3.14 To seek to adopt an appraisal of the Conservation Area without obtaining local feedback into its development would also undermine the value and quality of the conservation area appraisal.
4 Financial Implications
4.1 Any future commitment to projects will require approval from Cabinet.
5 Legal Implications
5.1 The legal implications are as identified in the main body of the report.
5.2 Every Local Planning Authority is required from time to time pursuant to section 69 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 to determine which part of its areas are areas of special architectural and historical interest, the character or appearance of which it is desirable to preserve or enhance and to designate those areas as conservation areas
5.3 No special order is required for designation, merely a resolution of the Council. Such areas are thereafter subject to the following controls:
• The Council is under a duty to prepare proposals to ensure the preservation or enhancement of the area • Consent must be obtained from the Council for the demolition of all unlisted (other than excepted) buildings in the area • Special publicity in the form of site and press notices must be given to planning applications received for development in the area
5.4 In carrying out any functions under the planning Acts (and, in particular, in determining applications for planning permission and listed building consent), the Council and the Secretary of State are required to take into account the
Page 7 desirability of preserving or enhancing the character of appearance of the area
5.5 Notice must be given to the Council before works are carried out to any tree in the conservation area and restrictions exist to protect trees of a certain description
5.6 Permitted development rights are more restrictive to allow the Council greater control over the extension and/or alteration of buildings, formation of hardstandings, or the construction of walls, fences or other means of enclosure.
5.7 The displaying of commercial advertisements is more restricted without the granting of advertisement consent by the Council.
6 Personnel Implications
6.1 There are no personnel implications arising from this report.
7 Corporate Priorities
7.1 This report relates to regeneration proposals for the Heywood Station Conservation Area through physical conservation, increasing visitor number, learning and training opportunities and participation in cultural activities and decisions about heritage. As such, it contributes to all three of the Corporate priorities; Prosperity, People and Place.
8. Risk Assessment Implications
8.1 Approving the extensions to the Heywood Station Conservation Area has the following risks:
Page 8 Risk Consequence Likelihood Impact Category Mitigation (1-4) (1-4) The Local Unknown financial Possible Significant Red (12 ) Officers have Authority has a and personnel (3) (4) written to all general duty to cost depending on properties ensure the nature of within the preservation intervention Conservation and required. Area as part enhancement of the within consultation. Conservation Areas and as Once such may need designated, to intervene Officers will using write to enforcement property powers if the owners special informing character and them of the appearance of changes to the their conservation permitted area is under development threat. rights.
Officers have undertaken an appraisal and all buildings contained within the existing and proposed conservation area in a fair or better condition.
Officers are developing a borough-wide Heritage at Risk strategy.
8.2 Noting the updated regeneration proposals for the Heywood Station Conservation Area incurs the following risks:
Page 9 Risk Consequence Likelihood Impact Category Mitigation (1-4) (1-4) The Heritage The project does Possible Significant Amber The ELR ha ve Lottery Fund not receive (3) (3) (9) held a pre- (HLF) turn funding from the application down the Stage Heritage Lottery meeting with 1 Grant Bid. Fund. HLF.
The application will be developed following HLF guidance.
Officers will develop a ‘back-up’ option for delivering the proposals.
9. Equalities Impacts
9.1 Workforce Equality Impacts Assessment
There are no (significant) workforce equality issues arising from this report.
9.2 Equality/Community Impact Assessments
There are no (significant) equality/community issues arising from this report.
Background Papers Document Place of Inspection
Background papers are NOT • appendices to the report, • documents otherwise available publicly (i.e. not previous reports, minutes, government publications etc • confidential/exempt information.
The background papers referred to MUST be available on the Council’s website and should be accessible from a link included in the report
Page 10 APPENDIX 1: Proposed Heywood Station Conservation Area Boundary
Page 11 APPENDIX 2: Consultation Responses
The purpose of the consultation was to inform property owners and other interested individuals about the proposed extensions to and regeneration plans for the Heywood Station Conservation Area. It also provided an opportunity for engagement around the history of the area and identifying possible future participants and volunteers for the railway and delivery of activities.
The consultation for extensions to Heywood Station Conservation Area took place between July and September 2013. All properties within the proposed extensions were written to with information about where the draft appraisal and proposals could be viewed and an invitation to a consultation day on Saturday 27 th July 2013 which coincided with the 1968 End of Steam Festival which included activities at Heywood Station.
No written responses were received. The following comments were received from the Consultation Day:
Comment: Response: Suggestion of a gantry along the line of the Noted. Included within proposals. platform on the Sharpe’s side of the station, as it is currently very difficult for photographers to get good shots of the trains. Old photographs and memories. Grandfather Noted. owned Atlantic Mill.
Owns / owned property around the canal Noted. To be followed up in project basin. Thinks the canal basin land is in trust. development. Suggested contacting Veronica Priory of Heywood Memories.
Knowledge of signals and crossing keepers Noted. To be followed up in project house, had example of similar design of development. crossing keepers house at Lostock Station. Suggested contacting Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Society General interest in railway and proposals.
General interest in railway and proposals.
Father was a driver on the railway based on Noted Bury until 1966.
General interest in railway and proposals.
Page 12 APPENDIX 3 Conservation Areas Overview
What are Conservation Areas? A conservation area is an area of special architectural or historic interest, the character and appearance of which it is desirable to preserve or enhance . Areas are assessed from a local perspective where the aim is to conserve the familiar and cherished local scene. The most important conservation areas may also be of national importance but there is no separate designation for this. Conservation areas are for areas, not individual buildings. However, what constitutes an area is very wide. For example, the smallest conservation area might be a house and a garden, or perhaps a church and associated vicarage, while the largest conservation area might cover a substantial rural landscape. Many are town or village centres while others cover unique areas, such as model housing estates. The designation of long lengths of canal and railway is common, as is the designation of the best of a particular urban type such as terraced housing or industrial buildings. Most conservation areas support the social cohesion of the particular area through the encouragement of local pride and the care of the environment. Conservation area status is an official acknowledgement that an area has special heritage value. This eventually works its way through the developmental and ownership structure of a place and encourages a virtuous cycle of improvement. For example, it can become easier to achieve better design quality or successful grant applications to outside bodies.
How are Conservation Areas made? Conservation areas are normally made or “designated” by the local planning authority under powers contained in the Planning (Listed Buildings & Conservation Areas) Act 1990. The local authority can alter the boundary of an existing conservation area or cancel it altogether. The Council is free to establish its own designation procedure and criteria. The procedure should normally include the consultation of affected properties and interested groups and bodies by letter. Conservation areas should have a strong local flavour and interest and, for this reason, are designated by the Township Committees rather than a borough-wide committee at Rochdale MBC. Nevertheless, it is important to see conservation areas as part of the wider planning of the Borough. They should be consistent with other aims and policies of the UDP and complement other Council initiatives.
The Consequences of Conservation Area Designation
These can be summarised as follows.
a. The local planning authority is under a general duty to ensure the preservation and enhancement of conservation areas and has a particular duty to prepare proposals to that end. b. The local authority may be able to take steps to ensure a building is kept in good repair. c. From time to time, limited financial assistance may be available for the upkeep of buildings in the area. d. The details as to the limits of what works may be carried out without planning permission are different. In particular, permitted development rights are more limited for householders – for example, the enlargement of a dwellinghouse consisting of an addition or alteration to its roof is not Permitted Development in conservation areas. Other areas of permitted development such as development
Page 13 within the curtilage of a dwellinghouse and the installation or replacement of an antenna are also affected. However, works to windows and doors are unaffected by conservation area status. For more information on Permitted Development Rights in conservation areas, please contact the development control team on 01706 924305. e. The planning authority is to take into account the desirability of preserving and enhancing the character and appearance of the area when determining planning applications and there is extra publicity for applications to this effect. f. Conservation Area Consent is required for the demolition of any unlisted building in the area and the local authority can take enforcement action or institute a criminal prosecution if consent is not obtained. g. Notice must be given to the local authority before works are carried out to any tree in the area. h. The display of advertisements is more restricted than elsewhere.
Adopted Principles There are five adopted principles guiding the Council's actions concerning the making of new Conservation Areas. These are set out below. Principles 3. and 5. specifically underpin the reasoning of this report, which tries to square the need for public consultation with that of an urgent response to a particular circumstance. 1. Only areas and buildings of special architectural or historic interest should be made conservation areas. Areas or buildings without such special interest should not be designated, no matter how strong other reasons might be. 2. The designation of conservation areas should be consistent with the policies of the Unitary Development Plan and good planning practice. 3. The process of making of conservation areas should be open and fair. It should be responsive to local opinion and allow local people and other interested parties to comment. 4. The process should be efficient and practical. It should encourage the making of good decisions within available resources and practical time frames. 5. The process should be flexible to respond to the range of heritage and planning contexts that may arise. In particular, the process should be able to cater for urgent situations where the special interest or character of an area is under immediate threat.
Page 14 APPENDIX 4: Heritage Lottery Fund Bid – Summary
HEYWOOD STATION AREA, OUR HERITAGE
1.0 Vision:
To bring to life the captivating story of the local transport history at Heywood Station to increase visitor numbers and engage the local community through enhancements to the historic built environment, increased interpretive materials and delivery of an activity programme.
2.0 Aims & Objectives:
2.1 Heritage will be better interpreted and explained.
- Development of a heritage trail around the conservation area with public art and interpretation at key points on the trail. The trail will enable local people to learn about the contribution of local transport history in shaping the town’s economic development in the 19 th and 20 th century. The trail also forms part of a series of attractions to encourage visitors to disembark at Heywood.
- Work in partnership with ELR restoration groups to identify and restore historic rolling stock that is of significance to the site and to Heywood’s local history. Provide a permanent location for temporary displays with opportunities for outreach and training through their restoration.
- Utilise digital technology to publish information and learning resources to a wide audience, including local schools and communities.
- Create opportunities for intergenerational exchange to record oral history, encouraging local residents to share their memories, family photographs and other memorabilia with the project group and participating schools.
2.2 Provide opportunities for participation and learning:
- Build partnerships with local schools and community groups to develop and deliver activities supporting element of the curriculum and allowing them to gain new skills and experiences (for example researching & collecting information relating to the history of the area, working with artists/exhibitors, site visits)
- Establish an education coach at Heywood Station to be used for local schools and as an outreach centre for Bury Transport Museum.
- Establish Heywood Station as an outdoor museum for local people and visitors to learn about heritage through a public art heritage trail,
2.3 Utilise the heritage assets to bring economic benefits for the town:
- Improve the visitor experience in and around the Station to attract visitors from the railway.
- Develop awareness of the railway and Heywood through the project to increase visitor numbers.
Page 15
2.4 Increase local ownership and pride in Heywood Station
- Local people will learn about heritage and actively contribute to the project through events, learning, arts and sharing their heritage.
- development lasting links and working relationships with local communities providing volunteer opportunities and ambassadors to better link the railway with the town and local community. - Produce presentations and public-facing material to local groups, residents and ELR visitors, and press releases to the media to inform on the project and its progress.
3.0 Proposal
The project will focus on using the surviving historic environment and industrial heritage associated with this transportation history to develop a package of environmental enhancements, leisure attractions and interpretation that will foster pride within the local Heywood Community, offer a learning resource related to the local transportation history and raise Heywood’s appeal as a visitor destination for both ELR visitors and visitors to the area.
The bid will deliver the following activities: • Production of 6 Heritage Trail Information Stones at key locations (for guided and self guided understanding of heritage significance) • Refurbishment of salvaged heritage footbridge (former Dinting Steam Centre) • Refurbishment of café/ education coach (already acquired and work commenced) • Development and implementation an activity plan. • Display of refurbished rail wagons (Standard Wagon significance) and travelling exhibitions with a strong local heritage
Complementary to the HLF project bid, we will be looking at: • Re-opening the station approach from Manchester Road to vehicular traffic will link the station area back with the town centre (Rochdale MBC). • Providing an interactive kids’ play area to enable children to explore and examine history in a playful environment (example ‘The Melting Shop’ at Kelham Island Museum, Sheffield)
Page 16 Heywood Station CONSERVATION AREA APPRAISAL
Final Draft–Page June 172014
Mark Robinson
Head of Planning
Planning Services
Directorate of Economy and Environment
Conservation & Design
Rochdale Borough Council
Number One Riverside
Smith Street
Rochdale
OL16 1XU
Telephone: 0300 303 8873
Email: [email protected]
Page 18 Conservation Area Appraisal: Heywood Station
Contents
1.0 Introduction
2.0 Summary of Significance
3.0 Planning Policy Context
4.0 Location and Context
5.0 Historic Development & Significance
5.1 Historic Map Regression
5.2 Historic Interest
5.3 Archaeological Potential
6.0 Spatial Analysis
6.1 Spatial Analysis Map
6.2 Key Views and Vistas
7.0 Character Analysis
7.1 General Character and Plan Form
7.2 Landscape and Setting
7.3 Architectural Character
7.4 The Public Realm
8.0 Management
8.1 Strategic Challenges and Pressures
8.2 Enhancement Opportunities
9.0 Variation to Conservation Area Boundary
10.0 Useful Information & Contact Details
3 Page 19
Conservation Area Appraisal: Heywood Station
1.0 Introduction
Trains returned to Heywood in 2003, when the Heywood to Bury line was re- opened by The East Lancashire Railway
The Heywood Station Conservation Area (ELR) to its former glory. The ELR was lies to the south of Heywood town cen- opened as a heritage railway in 1987 tre in an industrial area near the M62, off and extended to Heywood in 2003; the A6046 Manchester Road. bringing a popular heritage attraction to the town. The ELR has now developed
into one of the largest tourist attractions The area was designated as an ‘area of in the North West with over 100,000 visi- special architectural or historic interest, tors per year. the character or appearance of which,
it is desirable to preserve or enhance’ in 2007 [as defined by The Planning (Listed In 2008 the ELR Trust commissioned a Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act study on the regeneration benefits the 1990]. This appraisal has been produced ELR has triggered over its 20 year history to establish the special character and and to develop a 10 year strategy. This significance of the existing designated has been translated into the develop- conservation area, along with the fol- ment of a masterplan to guide future lowing proposed extensions to the con- action. In terms of the Bury to Heywood servation area: section of line one of the main conclu- sions of the report was that Heywood is
“the least exploited stop on the route Green Lane (Phoenix Brewery, the and currently there is little reason for visi- Railway Cottage) tors to disembark and explore the area” (ELR Trust Summary Report, 2009 p14). The Canal Head
Navigation Inn This appraisal will inform emerging herit-
age-led regeneration plans for the area The East Lancashire Railway Preservation by establishing the special interest of the Society formed in 1968 with the aim of area and identifying opportunities for restoring the East Lancashire Railway enhancement. 4 Page 20
Conservation Area Appraisal: Heywood Station
2.0 Summary of Significance
Trains continue to form part of the special character of Heywood Station Con- servation Area.
The significance of the Heywood Station hanced by the historic context of the Conservation Area lies in the fascinating conservation area through which the story of economic growth as an early appreciation of its historic function is en- transportation terminus and of the local hanced. relationship between the canal and rail-
way that was illustrative of the wider changes modernising British transport in There is strong group value in the collec- the 19th Century; witnessed through the tion of historic buildings related to the historic built environment. industrial growth linked to the canal and railway: Phoenix Brewery, The Former
Navigation Inn, Goods Shed and Ware- The conservation area provides the his- house and Railway Cottage. toric context for the railway warehouse
and loading shed at the Old Goods Yard, Sefton Street (Grade II listed). The The industrial character of the conserva- warehouse and shed is an early exam- tion area and its on-going use for trans- ple of such a building, associated with portation and industry provides a contin- the railway engineer Thomas Gooch uous history of goods shipment from the and formed part of the Manchester and Georgian period. Leeds Railway built jointly by Gooch and George Stephenson in 1836-41. It is a rare survival and its significance is en- 5 Page 21
Conservation Area Appraisal: Heywood Station
3.0 The Planning Policy Context
The Planning (Listed Buildings and Con- way Street Area of Opportunity, Hey- servation Areas) Act 1990 imposes a du- wood. ty on local planning authorities to survey
and keep under review their district for areas which are of special architectural This area is allocated for mixed uses, or historic interest, the character of through redevelopment and conversion which it is desirable to preserve or en- of existing land and buildings, that: com- hance, and to designate those areas as plement the operation of the East Lan- conservation areas. This duty is an on- cashire Railway as a tourist attraction going requirement of local authorities. and gateway to Heywood; provide ad- ditional facilities and attractions for pas-
sengers and visitors; and improve the lo- The Castleton and Heywood Masterplan cal environment. ‘Unlocking the Potential’ was completed
in October 2010 and presents a vision for Heywood and Castleton which incorpo- A/20 East Lancashire Railway rates short-term and long-term proposals The Council will actively promote the res- and initiatives to regenerate the areas toration of the Heywood to Bury railway around the ELR and the canal head. The line for passenger and freight services. In ambition for the Heywood Station Con- order to safeguard the link with the na- servation Area is to develop the herit- tional rail network, the council will not age and educational offer around the permit any development likely to preju- cultural built heritage, supported by lei- dice the continued use of the line be- sure and residential developments in the tween Heywood and Castleton for rail- longer term. way operation.
The masterplan can be viewed on the The Council is currently in the process of East Lancashire Railway Website: replacing the UDP through a new Local Plan. The first stage of this is the Core Strategy which sets out strategic plan- www.eastlancsrailway.org.uk/wp- ning policies for Borough up to 2028. This content/uploads/2010/11/Castleton- will be followed by an Allocations Devel- and-Heywood-Masterplan-Autumn- opment Plan document which will set 2010.pdf out specific land allocations. The Core Strategy retains a focus on conservation and design and also acknowledges the The Unitary Development Plan (UDP) opportunities linked to the East Lanca- which was adopted in June 2006 is the shire Railway as identified through Cas- current statutory land-use plan for the tleton and Heywood Masterplan. Borough. The UDP contains conservation and design policies to sustain and en- hance the Borough’s heritage assets As part of an ongoing survey of the bor- and to ensure new development re- ough, Heywood Station has been identi- spects the historic environment. These fied as an area of significant architectur- policies can be accessed on the Coun- al and historic interest. The designation cil’s website: www.rochdale.gov.uk/ recognises this value and seeks to pro- planning. tect its significance and character for current and future generations to enjoy. Site specific policies relating to this area contained within the UDP include: R/4(h) Sefton Street/ Green Land/ Rail-
6 Page 22
Conservation Area Appraisal: Heywood Station
4.0 Location and Context
Existing & Proposed Conservation Area Boundary
Heywood lies between the industrial conservation area to the west and north- towns of Rochdale and Bury, approxi- east. mately 10 miles north-east of Manches-
ter. Like many Greater Manchester towns, Heywood suffered from econom- The current conservation area boundary ic decline in the latter part of the twenti- contains Heywood Station; open on se- eth century. Since then the town has lected days as a tourist attraction, and seen investment from the Government’s the old goods yard from which a haul- New Deal for Communities regeneration age company are operating. If the pro- initiative which invested £52 million into posed extensions are adopted the con- the area in 2001. servation area will include further busi- ness/industrial uses, leisure, commercial
and residential. There are opportunities The Heywood Station Conservation Area to increase leisure and tourism within the is situated to the south of the town cen- conservation area and its surroundings tre in an industrial location near the M62, linked to the transport heritage. off the A6046. The dispersed industrial area with large sheds set in yards con- trasts with the dense terraces of residen- tial and commercial areas bounding the
7 Page 23
Conservation Area Appraisal: Heywood Station
5.0 Historic Development and Significance
Heywood Station c1910 courtesy of Heywood Local Studies (Link4Life)
Each conservation area is unique. In the This section of the appraisal sets out that case of Heywood Station Conservation history through maps, photographs and Area its special interest is primarily in the an account informed by historic re- history told by the surviving transport search undertaken at Local Studies and infrastructure, landscaping, buildings at the Lancashire archives. and other features.
8 Page 24
Conservation Area Appraisal: Heywood Station
5.1 Historic Map Regression
1851: Circle identifies approximate location of Heywood Station & canal basin
Heywood Station Area 1893
9 Page 25
Conservation Area Appraisal: Heywood Station
5.1 Historic Map Regression
Heywood Station Area 1909
Heywood Station Area 1929
10 Page 26
Conservation Area Appraisal: Heywood Station
5.2 Historic Interest
The Former Navigation Inn provided hostelry for those travelling by canal and then railway to Heywood and stabling for horses. Photograph c1992 courtesy of Heywood Local Studies (Link4Life).
Heywood : The Rochdale Canal: From the eighteenth century Heywood The scale and pioneering nature of the grew from a few hundred fustian hand- Trans-Pennine Rochdale Canal made it loom weavers and manufacturers to an engineering feat and its opening was one of the largest and most populous a gala event attended by thousands. It villages in Lancashire by the 1840s. Its was the first and by far the most success- location, meant Heywood had both a ful canal to connect Yorkshire and Lan- cotton and woollen industry, unlike the cashire, but like all canals suffered from majority of Lancashire which focussed drought in summer and frosts in winter. on cotton production. The advance- The Heywood Branch of the Rochdale ment was due to excellent nearby coal Canal opened on 10th September 1834. mines in the townships of Bamford and At this time a Canal Wharf Warehouse Hopwood and the coming of the canal for cotton was erected, but was de- (1834) and railway (1841) to Heywood stroyed by fire in 1871. The canal con- which allowed goods to be exported veyed cotton, coal, lime, timber and more easily and food brought in to feed flags amongst other articles. It also a growing manufacturing population. served as a passenger connection with By 1855, many mills and other enterprises the train service to Manchester through had sprung up around the transport ter- a packet boat service from the canal mini at Sefton Street and in the town. wharf in Heywood to the Blue Pits train The increased traffic, particularly from station in Castleton which opened in the mills and breweries required a goods 1839. For over 40 years the Rochdale yard in Heywood., which was built at Canal was the key arterial route for Sefton Street. The extent of the yard de- goods transport between Yorkshire and fined by its high boundary walls and Lancashire and carried not only local, gate piers still exists today along with a but cross-country cargos between the warehouse and goods shed (Grade II ports of Hull and Liverpool. The canal’s listed). traffic peaked in 1888 and long distance trade was eventually lost to the faster
and more efficient railways.
11 Page 27
Conservation Area Appraisal: Heywood Station
5.2 Historic Interest
Photograph courtesy of Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Society (1964 )
Whilst the canal branch has been filled grain and other agricultural products to in, the outline of the canal head of the the highly populated manufacturing dis- termini at Sefton Street can still be seen tricts. It fed these growing populations behind the high retaining walls. and allowed them to export their goods as far away as the East and West Indies,
Canada, the United States, and South The Manchester and Leeds Railway: America. The Manchester and Leeds Railway The Manchester and Leeds Railway was Company formed in 1825 with the aim primarily a freight rather than passenger “to open and improve communication railway. In 1845 the aggregate extent of between the great Commercial and the flooring in the Company’s ware- Manufacturing Districts, in the County of houses would cover 6 acres and the Lancaster, and the West Riding of the sacks of flour within these warehouses County of York.” However, it wasn’t until would cover 11 acres. The railway’s im- 1836 that parliament approved the age was “very much that of the North of building of the railway due to delay in England at the time, hard-working, inten- part caused by sustained opposition sively developed, a little grimy, innova- from the Rochdale Canal Company. tive yet allowing itself few indulgencies George Stephenson was employed to and above all commercially clear- establish the most favourable route with headed to the point of boredom.” De- his friend and former pupil Thomas spite the focus on freight, the Company Gooch. was socially pioneering in opening up affordable rail travel for the working clas- By 1842 the Manchester and Leeds Rail- ses through their wagon class and was way was considered “one of the princi- the first railway company to introduce pal lines of railway throughout the king- printed tickets. dom forming, as it does, the main link in the great transverse chain between Liv- erpool and Hull.” It led achievements in The Coming of the Railway to Heywood: trans-Pennine rail transport and George Stephenson laid his reputation on the During initial proposals for the Manches- safety of the Tunnel through Summit. The ter and Leeds Railway, Heywood was Railway linked areas producing corn, omitted from the list of proposed branch 12 Page 28
Conservation Area Appraisal: Heywood Station
5.25.1 Historic Interest
Photograph c1970 showing a new footbridge being installed at Heywood Station Courtesy of Heywood Local Studies (Link4Life)
lines. However, by 1836 this had opened up to Bury, and Heywood changed. Either the growth of Heywood changed from a local terminus to a had been sufficient for the Company to through route, which provided the rail- acknowledge the benefits of a branch way company with an avoidance line line or the Company was looking ahead around Manchester. The resultant to amalgamations which would extend sweep of the track which creates a dis- their reach to Liverpool and achieve tinct feature in the townscape, was so their ambition of “A Grand Line of Rail- severe that large locomotives, such as way between the Eastern and Western the Royal Scot, were barred from using Seas.” It is likely both played their part the Heywood branch and Heywood became one of the first The canal and railway were no doubt in branch lines off the Manchester and competition for trade; the canal had to Leeds trunk line. lower its tolls to retain business. The Roch- Work on the Heywood Branch com- dale Canal Company had vehemently menced in November 1840 at a cost of opposed the passing of the Manchester £10,000. It was opened to horse-drawn and Leeds Railway Bill in the 1830s. How- wagons on 15th April 1841. The horses ever, the canal lost out and was leased were stabled at the Navigation Inn (now to a consortium of railway companies, Il Vecchios Restaurant), which changed Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Com- its name to the Railway and Navigation pany being the largest stakeholder, in Inn in recognition of the dual transport 1855. terminal.
In 1847 the Manchester and Leeds rail- Heywood Station way became part of the newly formed Yorkshire and Lancashire Railway and The purpose of the branch was principal- the first steam powered locomotives ly commercial as shown in the plans of travelled along the Heywood Branch 1843; the station is dominated by the Line. The following year the line was early 1840s warehouse and loading
13 Page 29
Conservation Area Appraisal: Heywood Station
5.25.1 Historic Interest
Canal at Green Lane Heywood 1973, courtesy of Heywood Local Studies (Link4Life)
shed. In 1848 a survey described the sta- little or no traffic, although the surround- tion as a terminus train shed served by a ing mills continued to draw water for in- single line whilst a small building marks dustrial use. In 1949 the Rochdale Canal the very end of the line. Company unanimously decided to seek Parliamentary powers to close the navi- Although the railway line to Heywood gation citing the economies to be made opened in 1841, there was no station on lock and bridge upkeep. building until 1853, when temporary sheds were built. A permanent station building was only built in 1871 and re- “The canal has long outlived its useful- built in 1883. It consisted of a urinal, ness as a medium of transport, and, alt- lamp room, porters’ room, station mas- hough it still plays a very minor part in the ter’s office, general waiting room, ladies industrial life of the town, its present stag- waiting room, parcels office and book- nant state is a constant reminder of the ing office, on the Rochdale-line plat- changes wrought in the name of pro- form. The station building has long since gress” (The Heywood Advertiser January been demolished and the current plat- 14th 1949). form and station furniture have been installed by the East Lancashire Railway. As the mills declined in number through the 20th century and those that remain 20th Century Decline: turned increasingly to road transport, as The importance of the canal in Hey- did passengers; the traffic along the rail- wood began to decline from the com- way gradually decreased. In 1970 the pletion of the railway line between Bury, line to Heywood was closed to passen- Heywood and Manchester in 1848. At gers and remained open to freight only the turn of the 20th century it carried for several more years.
14 Page 30
Conservation Area Appraisal: Heywood Station
5.3 Archaeological Potential
The canal warehouse on the site of the canal head, replacing an earlier warehouse which was de- stroyed by fire earlier that year. Courtesy of Heywood Local Studies (Link4Life)
There are no scheduled ancient monu- it is testament to a railway compa- ments within the site, but significant sec- ny that was instrumental in open- tions of the conservation area are likely ing up efficient trans-Pennine to be of archaeological interest relating transport and therefore the eco- to the growth and development of the nomic growth of Yorkshire and Lan- area as a transport terminus and later cashire in the 19th and 20th centu- avoidance line around Manchester. ries. When the station was rebuilt in 1871
there were reports that a stone axe was found during excavations, suggesting of the association with the excep- earlier archaeology may be found on tionally well-preserved goods the site. There may also be archaeologi- warehouse and loading shed and cal value in the sites of the former Iron in a setting which is still used for Works and mills outside of the conserva- goods transportation and storage. tion area and opportunities for archaeo- The sites of interest have not been logical investigation. The conservation built upon, offering the possibility of area’s industrial archaeology is of im- well preserved archaeology and portance because: an insight into local goods transport.
15 Page 31
Conservation Area Appraisal: Heywood Station
6.0 Spatial Analysis
Spatial analysis identifies the key buildings, views, vistas & landmarks, such as the Phoenix Brewery Tower (above)
16 Page 32
Conservation Area Appraisal: Heywood Station
6.1 Spatial Analysis Map
17 Page 33
Conservation Area Appraisal: Heywood Station
6.2 Key Views and Vistas
1. View east from Railway St, across the railway tracks & goods yard with distant view of Pennines (photograph Dec 2009)
2. The Former Railway Warehouse & Loading Shed (Grade II) features prominently in views into the station site & from Sefton Street (photograph August 2013)
18 Page 34
Conservation Area Appraisal: Heywood Station
6.2 Key Views and Vistas
3. The view north along Manchester Road would be en- hanced by the removal of clutter from the foreground. (Photograph 2012)
4. The view towards Phoenix Brewery along Sefton Street is harmed by the poor appearance of vacant land and self-seeded trees. Development on the site should have a strong building line and frame views of the brewery tower to enhance the visual connec- tion between the goods shed and yard and the brewery. (Photograph 2014)
19 Page 35
Conservation Area Appraisal: Heywood Station
6.2 Key Views and Vistas
5. View south along Green Lane towards Phoenix Brewery (Photograph 2014)
6. Views north-west (left) & south-east (right) along the railway track (Photographs 2013)
20 Page 36
Conservation Area Appraisal: Heywood Station
7.0 Character Analysis
The historic buildings and structures associated with the canal and railway, the engineered landscape and continued use as a railway and haulage base is central to the conservation area’s special character.
21 Page 37
Conservation Area Appraisal: Heywood Station
7.1 General Character and Plan Form
The retaining walls are a defining characteristic of the area: looking south-east from Railway St to Sefton St across the railway tracks.
The overall character of the Conserva- Mills and factories grew up around the tion Area is typified by industrial devel- railway and canal and today, the sur- opment spanning from the late Geor- rounding area is characterised by their gian period to the present day. The area modern shed replacements. However, a was a terminus for the railway and canal number of historic industrial buildings and branches transporting goods to and structures, and buildings strongly associ- from Heywood. The urban landscape is ated with the transport termini survive. dominated by the Georgian and Victori- Their spatial orientation relates to the his- an engineering and construction relat- toric transportation routes and the area’s ed to the railway and canal. As the land development as Heywood grew in im- slopes downhill to the north east both portance and traffic increased. There is railway and canal used large retaining no dominant architectural style, scale or stone walls to create suitable flat areas materials unifying the conservation area for their termini. These impart much of and the proposed extensions. Instead, the unusual character to the area today the cultural built heritage is unified by its and define the historic boundaries of historic interest in being associated to the termini. Those both side of Sefton the existence and development of the Street sweep around the bend of the canal and railway in Heywood. Together road and terminate with a single pier at they create an area of historic and ar- the entrances to the railway goods yard chitectural interest, the character of and the canal basin. The sweep of the which it is desirable to preserve and en- road was a consequence of the railway hance. Critical to the coherence of the extension to Bury and is an important conservation area are the visual linkages townscape feature. between landmark buildings; the railway warehouse and loading shed, the Phoe-
nix Brewery and the Former Navigation Inn.
22 Page 38
Conservation Area Appraisal: Heywood Station
7.2 Landscape & Setting
The topography of the conservation area provides views across to The Pennines. Photograph December 2009
The topography and open character of acter of the conservation area and chal- the station area, goods yard and lenge the aspiration of encouraging visi- cleared land to the south-east of it, pro- tors to the area to learn about its herit- vide long views out to the Pennines in age. the east and north east which make im-
portant visual linkages with the rural hin- terland where sheep grazed and provid- Residential development is encroaching ed Heywood with a woollen, as well as into the area and there is a high likeli- cotton, industry. It also puts into context hood residential proposals will come for- the pioneering achievements made in ward only Sefton Street in the direct set- Trans-Pennine transport that allowed ting of the conservation area. Such de- canal and rail connections between velopment would significantly alter the Lancashire towns, like Heywood, and character of the conservation area and the Yorkshire County. The industrial char- would need to be carefully planned and acter of the town and Borough can also designed to ensure the area’s historic be appreciated in the panoramic views industrial character was no diluted and which are interspersed with mill towers opportunities to enhance the character such as Mutual Mills in Heywood. and interpret the history of the area were utilised.
The immediate setting of the conserva- tion area is a challenging one. As an Historic maps show the growth of housing industrial area, the modern sheds and and business along Manchester Road in industrial development are a continua- the vicinity of the conservation area fol- tion of the area’s historical character. lowed the arrival of the railway. As such it Whilst at the same time they form an is an important part of the conservation unattractive backdrop to the architec- area’s context. tural significance and townscape char-
23 Page 39
Conservation Area Appraisal: Heywood Station
7.3 Architectural Character
Townscape Analysis Map detailing buildings which contribute to the character of the area
There is no dominant architectural style, demolished in 1969. The majority of the scale or materials unifying the conserva- station yard is surfaced in sandstone tion area and the proposed extensions. setts; retaining a historic character and Instead, the cultural built heritage is uni- along with enhancements by the ELR fied by its historic interest in being associ- creates an attractive environment. ated to the existence and development
of the canal and railway in Heywood. The railway track separates the station
yard from the goods yard and is a partic- Railway station, goods yard and ware- ularly interesting feature within the town- house: scape. The line to Bury curves into a low cutting as it leaves the station and goes Prominent stone walls and retaining under Manchester Road. The retaining walls define the perimeter of the railway walls and fall to the track creates a dra- area which comprises the station yard matic and enclosed feature that con- north of the track and the goods yard trasts with the otherwise open character south of the track. The current platform of the station area. As the line straightens and station buildings replaced those there is a long flat vista along the line
24 Page 40
Conservation Area Appraisal: Heywood Station
7.3 Architectural Character
Railway Cottage, Green Lane
towards Castleton. The interest of the benefit from its removal and exposure of railway track is increased by the railway the vertical timber planking behind. features introduced by ELR; the lamps,
signage and so on. The station building, whilst not historic is generally in-keeping Many of the features within the Old with the railway historic character. Goods Yard have been preserved; the gate posts at the entrance to the yard
exist in situ and the stone setts running The early 1840s Warehouse and Loading alongside the warehouse remain well- Shed (Grade II) is the only remaining intact. The retaining walls around the building in the goods yard and is an ex- goods yard define the extent of the cellent example of vernacular architec- goods yard and are generally in good ture adapted for the railway. It is con- condition, although in need of re- structed of sandstone with a slate room pointing in places. It is unknown whether in a subtle classical style. Its design was tracks or evidence of rail tracks and based on the neighbouring canal ware- cranes exist under the current surface to house (destroyed by fire in 1871). Its style the rear of the goods shed and should marks the transition from canal to rail- the opportunity arise it would be benefi- way transport and pre-dates standardi- cial to investigate their survival. sation in the design of such buildings. It
was built by the Manchester and Leeds Railway Company and is unique on the Green Lane (Phoenix Brewery, the Rail- former Lancashire and Yorkshire Rail- way Cottage): way. Neither are there any other known
examples of such a building within the Greater Manchester Area. The building The section of Green Lane proposed for survives remarkably intact with only inclusion in the conservation area is a some superficial alterations to the exteri- short length of attractive townscape or. The corrugated metal sheeting with leading down to the railway crossing on a modern porch on the south east ga- Green Lane. This is an attractive vista ble wall is detrimental to the character along Green Lane which greets those of the building and the building would approaching the Conservation Area 25 Page 41
Conservation Area Appraisal: Heywood Station
7.3 Architectural Character
Phoenix Brewery
from the north down Green Lane. The Brewery Company owned 120 premised character here is less industrial due to included the Navigation Inn. It was incor- the residential dwellings and mature porated in 1874 to acquire from Edwin planting on the east side of Green Lane. Crabtree, the Phoenix works, Green Views back to the station and goods Lane, formerly an iron works. The brewery yard are screened by self-seeded trees is a phased industrial complex compris- along the west of Green Lane; however ing an office, maltings, stables and brew- these trees also act to screen the dere- ing tower, arranged around a central lict site adjacent to the Conservation setted courtyard, with offices facing Area. There is a clear opportunity for en- Green Lane, set back from the road side. hancement here. The best views of the The date on the tower is 1895 and the station from Green Lane are at the level offices were opened in 1903, but the crossing. The railway signs, signals and maltings are believed to be old and rec- the railway cottage combine to create ords of a Phoenix Brewery on Green a strong node of railway character at Lane go back to at least 1879. Whilst the this location. brewery design was practical; based on the functions within, the ornamentation is
playful. The architectural style is best de- Railway Cottage (c1840s) is vernacular scribed as freestyle incorporating ele- in style and an attractive survivor of the ments of classicism, Gothicism and ver- railway line that adds character and nacular details. It is a red brick construc- interest to the Heywood Station Conser- tion with contrasting yellow sandstone vation Area. It is painted green with a details including a pedimented porch to slate roof and although some historic the office, cills, finials and arch into the features have been lost is in a good courtyard. The brewery is a prominent state of conservation. feature in the townscape, in particular the tower with its ornamental iron crown
which is seen from a distance and makes Phoenix Brewery was one of three brew- the brewery an important landmark. The eries operating from Green Lane in the tower, with its decorative iron crown, is nineteenth century and the only one also prominent in views along Green remaining today. At its peak the Phoenix Lane. Approaching the conservation ar- 26 Page 42
Conservation Area Appraisal: Heywood Station
7.3 Architectural Character
The canal head from the rear of Manchester Road properties
ea from the north along Green Lane, the retaining walls of the goods yard and the view of the level crossing, railway station; create a dominant feature of the cottage and brewery is particularly at- conservation area. Although the canal tractive and clearly expresses the rail warehouse has long since disappeared, and industrial character of the area. As the still visible in-filled canal head such it is an important contribution to demonstrates the evolution of transport the character the conservation area. and the coming of the railways resulting On Sefton Street, the retaining walls on in the Rochdale Canal becoming obso- the corner turn by the entrance to the lete. It is important for the context of the railway goods year reveals an impres- conservation area and presents an op- sive vista along the street terminated by portunity for future development to inter- the Phoenix brewery brewing tower. pret the history of the site. Between Railway Cottage and Phoenix Brewery are two residential dwellings The Former Navigation Inn: dating to the late nineteenth century with twentieth century additions. Only not clearly related to the railway or ca- As Manchester Road crosses the railway, nal, they fall within a local conservation the townscape opens up. A substantial area boundary and make a substantial landmark is the Georgian Inn, the Former positive contribution to the character Navigation Inn, set apart from surround- and appearance of the area. ing uniform townscape; it is the focal point of views along Manchester Road and marks the northern gateway into the The Canal Head: Conservation Area.
The footprint of the canal head and the From outside the Inn there are pictur- wharf warehouse are still visible and can esque views across to the Pennines, mak- be seen from the aerial photographs. ing visual linkages wit the rural hinterland The former canal wharf is enclosed by where sheep grazed and provided Hey- retaining stone walls that combined with wood with a woollen as well as cotton 27 Page 43
Conservation Area Appraisal: Heywood Station
7.3 Architectural Character
The Former Navigation Inn (2010)
industry. It also puts into context the pio- Vecchio, an Italian restaurant, it was an neering achievements made in Trans- Inn and stable warehouse first leased in Pennine transport that allowed canal 1837. Its stable warehouse housed the and rail connections between Lanca- horses that pulled barges and carts deliv- shire towns like Heywood and Yorkshire. ering goods to Heywood. It was sold to In views to the Pennines in the north, Mu- the Phoenix Brewery, also in the Conser- tual Mills can be seen; a complex of vation Area, in 1889. Similar to the railway listed mills (Grade II, 1884-1914) an im- goods shed and warehouse it is in a ver- portant example of how Heywood in- nacular style with some classical fea- dustrialised following the arrival of the tures. It is constructed of red brick with canal and railway. sandstone copings to the gable and sta- ble warehouse cornice. The roof is slate.
Its exterior is in a good state of conserva- This area has been pedestrianised, stop- tion with some alterations to the stable ping traffic between Railway Street and warehouse to form toilets. There is a small Manchester Road. There is an interpreta- twentieth century addition to the east tion board and some public art, howev- elevation and the original windows have er the overall quality of the public realm been lost. is generally low and the area is clut-
tered. This could easily and inexpensive- ly been improved to create a focal point marking an entrance from Man- chester Road to the Station.
The former Navigation Inn frames this area of public realm and has a strong connection with the canal and railway; demonstrated by its previous name, ‘The Navigation and Railway Inn.’ Now Il
28 Page 44
Conservation Area Appraisal: Heywood Station
7.4 The Public Ream
The public realm immediately south of The Former Navigation Inn (left) and examples of the railway equipment which adds character and interest to the public realm (right)
The quality and historic value of the chios) is in a poor condition with broken public realm varies across the conserva- paving and overgrown flower beds, cre- tion area and proposed extensions. ating a neglected and abandoned Sandstone is the predominant historic character. material within the historic public realm. The public realm is also poor along Sef- The station and railway goods yard has ton Street which challenges the ability to a predominance of sandstone setts entice visitors to explore the wider area and, along with the canal head, are and partake in a heritage trail. The self- enclosed by sandstone walls. In addi- seeded trees on the vacant brownfield tion, there are some areas of local brick. site between the railway and Sefton There is no historic street furniture. Street Street block views and connectivity furniture added at the station and on across the Conservation Area. The vege- Railway St contribute to the general rail- tation encroaches onto the footpaths way character. However, the public and the barriers onto the site are detri- realm at the station entrance and out- mental to the character and appear- side the Former Navigation Inn (Il Vec- ance of the conservation area.
29 Page 45
Conservation Area Appraisal: Heywood Station
8.0 Management
Effective management of conservation areas identifies threat and opportuni- ties to enhance their special architectural and historic character.
30 Page 46
Conservation Area Appraisal: Heywood Station
8.1 Strategic Challenges & Pressures
The railway goods shed has been re-used as an office for a haulage company.
The Castleton and Heywood Masterplan and Manchester Road which needs to ‘Unlocking the Potential’ set out the be addressed if visitors are to be encour- long term vision for Heywood following aged to visit the Station. consultation and input from stakehold- The greatest opportunity for enhancing ers. the Heywood Station Conservation Area The key challenge for the Heywood Sta- would be the development of the va- tion Conservation Area is reconciling cant brown-field site between Sefton current industrial uses in and surrounding Street and the railway. Whilst it does not the Conservation Area with realising the fall within the Conservation Area bound- full potential of Heywood station as an ary, it is within the setting. Development East Lancashire Railway visitor attrac- on the site has the potential to contrib- tion. The area’s industrial heritage is the ute to the special character and ap- raison d’être for the conservation area pearance of the area and to aid inter- and industrial use in principle, is not in- pretation and visitor movement across compatible with preserving and en- the conservation area. hancing the character of the conserva- The poor quality and maintenance of tion area. the public realm detracts from the spe- The conservation area contains exam- cial character and appearance of the ples of how industrial uses can contrib- conservation area. The pavements are ute to preserving and enhancing the poor along Sefton Street which presents conservation area through retaining his- a risk for pedestrians particularly given toric buildings in sustainable use. Howev- the number of HGVs using the area. er, there is an issue of signage in the Aside, from the Masterplan, a number of conservation area which detracts for smaller scale actions, some derived from the architectural and historic character. this work have been identified to secure There is a poor visual connection be- short to medium term enhancements tween the Station, conservation area through a funding bid.
31 Page 47
Conservation Area Appraisal: Heywood Station
8.2 Enhancement Opportunities
32 Page 48
Conservation Area Appraisal: Heywood Station
9.0 Variation to Conservation Area Boundary area boundary, excludingManchester 1-15 Road Boundary map showing extension to conservation
33 Page 49
Conservation Area Appraisal: Heywood Station
9.0 Variation to Conservation Area Boundary
1-15 Manchester Road do not have the architectural and historic interest to merit conservation area designation. .
When the Heywood Station Conserva- of special interest, any future opportunity tion Area was designated under the for an archaeological investigation on Council’s Urgent Designation Procedure the site should be utilised. in 2007, The Heywood Township Commit-
tee report included a wider conserva- tion area boundary for consideration Manchester Road is a Victorian Town- following an appraisal of the area’s spe- scape of brick terraced houses and cial architectural and historic character. shops. The height of the buildings relative This included for consideration the des- to the street width, and the predomi- ignation of 1-15 Manchester Road. A nance of long terraces give a strong hor- study of the proposed boundary area izontal emphasis which draws the eye and the wider area along Manchester down the street. The loss of historic fea- Road and Green Lane was undertaken tures has resulted in the cumulative ero- to assess the historic character and ap- sion of character and historic interest. pearance. Leading to the rear of the Hazel Bank Terrace is a cobbled lane. The canal ba-
sin wall runs along the back of the prop- 1-15 Manchester Road: erties. Whilst the continuity of terraces along Manchester Road, only broken in some Following the assessment of this area, it is places, provides an attractive town- recommended that the area not be in- scape, many of the properties have lost cluded within the conservation area but historic features. the boundary be drawn carefully to in- To the rear of 1-15 Manchester Road, on clude the retaining walls for the canal Quay Street, is a modern workshop. His- basin. toric map research shows previously that the site was a coal depot (1840s), works (1893), a smithy (1909) and a urinal (1936). Whilst the existing building is not
34 Page 50
Conservation Area Appraisal: Heywood Station
10.0 Useful Information
National Guidance
General Guidance on Conservation Areas:
http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/professional/advice/advice-by-topic/landscape-and- areas/conservation-area-guidance/
http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/caring/listing/local/conservation-areas/
Conservation Bulletin 62 (English Heritage):
http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/publications/conservation-bulletin-62/
Conservation Area Consent:
http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/professional/advice/our-planning-role/consent/ conservationareaconsent/
Local Guidance
Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council, Planning:
www.rochdale.gov.uk/planning_and_building.aspx
Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council, Unitary Development Plan:
http://www.cartoplus.co.uk/rochdale/text/00_cont.htm
35 Page 51
Agenda Item 3 Public Document Pack
HEYWOOD TOWNSHIP COMMITTEE
MINUTES OF MEETING Monday, 9th June 2014
PRESENT: Councillor Dutton (Chair), Councillors Beswick, Susan Emmott, Lambert, McCarthy, O'Rourke, Robinson and Rush
OFFICERS: Stuart Hay and Gary Finch (Customers and Corporate Services Directorate), Andrew Storey and Gordon Beverley (Economy and Environment)
ALSO IN ATTENDANCE: 2 representatives from Greater Manchester Police and 25 members of the public.
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE: Councillor Wardle
APPOINTMENT OF CHAIR OF HEYWOOD TOWNSHIP COMMITTEE 2014/15 85 APPOINTMENT OF CHAIR DECIDED – that Councillor Dutton be appointed Chair of Heywood Township Committee for the 2014/2015 Municipal Year.
(Note: Councillor Dutton in the Chair)
APPOINTMENT OF VICE CHAIR OF HEYWOOD TOWNSHIP COMMITTEE 2014/15 86 APPOINTMENT OF VICE-CHAIR DECIDED – that Councillor Lambert be appointed as Vice-Chair of Heywood Township for the 2014/2015 Municipal Year.
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST 87 Councillor Lambert declared a personal interest in item 13 on the agenda – School Governing Body Vacancies – as his wife was seeking an appointment as a School Governor. Councillor Lambert left the room when this item was discussed.
OPEN FORUM (6.30-7.00PM) 88 The following matters were raised during the Open Forum:
Purchase of a Plaque for Queens Park
Walter Lomax, Chair of Friends of Queens Park asked if the Committee would support the purchase of a plaque to be placed in the theatre in the park in recognition of the work carried out by Sheila Hill
The Committee agreed to the funding of the plaque from Township Funds and asked Mr. Lomax to liaise with the Township Officer to progress this issue.
Mr Lomax then identified an area in the park that in his opinion required maintenance. Gordon Beverley, Environmental Management informed the Committee that he would investigate the matter.
Parking and Speeding Concerns on Aspinall Street/Chadwick Lane
Daniel Meredith asked the Committee if it would address parking concerns on Chadwick Lane and the issue of speeding on Aspinall Street.
Page 52 Mr Meredith was informed that these concerns had been looked at previously and that they were Ward issues. Planning Applications had been refused due to additional vehicles wanting to park, but residents had never raised parking as a problem. Speeding on Aspinall Street had been surveyed, however a problem was not identified. Police are aware of complaints with regards to speeding and patrol the area.
Change in Leadership
Peter Malcolm asked the Committee what effect the change in Council Leader would have upon Heywood Township.
Mr Malcolm was informed that the Election process was fair and democratic and that difficult choices lay ahead. However Township Members reiterated that they would continue to work hard to ensure fairness across the Borough.
Community Group/Forum
Susan Coates asked the Committee if any progress had been made on the reinstatement of a Community Group/Forum.
The Committee informed Ms. Coates that they fully understood the benefits of a Community Group/Forum particularly the advantages that can be facilitated by engagement and involvement in attempting to understand Township priorities. Ms Clark was informed that the present situation would be reviewed.
Deputy Mayor, Library Service and Policing
Father Paul raised three observations: 1. His disappointment that Councillor Farooq Ahmed was not selected as Deputy Mayor.
2. The excellent service provided by the Library Service and his hope that the service would not be subject to budget reductions going forward.
3. The placement of the Police Station assigned to Heywood Township.
Deputy Mayor
Fred Wright expressed his concern about the way in which Councillor Farooq Ahmed had been treated with respect to his proposed nomination as Deputy Mayor.
HEYWOOD TOWNSHIP COMMITTEE 89 DECIDED – that the minutes of the Heywood Township Committee held on 3 rd March 2014 be approved as a correct record.
HEYWOOD TOWNSHIP DELEGATED SUB COMMITTEE 90 DECIDED – that the minutes of the meeting of the Heywood Township Delegated Sub-Committee held on 18 th March 2014 be noted.
HEYWOOD TOWNSHIP PLANNING SUB-COMMITTEE 91 DECIDED – that the minutes of the meeting of the Heywood Township Planning Sub-Committee held on 11 th March and 3 rd April 2014 be noted.
Page 53 HEYWOOD TOWNSHIP COMMITTEE - DELEGATION ARRANGEMENTS 2014/15 92 HEYWOOD TOWNSHIP COMMITTEE – DELEGATION ARRANGEMENTS The Deputy Chief Executive sought confirmation of the Heywood Township Sub- Committee structure and arrangements for 2014/15. DECIDED – that (1) the Sub-Committee structure of the Heywood Township Committee, comprising the Heywood Township Delegated Sub-Committee and the Heywood Township Planning Sub-Committee be confirmed; (2) the delegation arrangements to Heywood Township Delegated Sub-Committee, as contained within the Scheme of Delegation to Township Committees and detailed in Appendix 1 to the submitted report be approved and (3) the delegation arrangements to the Heywood Township Planning Sub-Committee, as contained within the Schedule of Delegation Arrangements for Development and Related Matters be noted.
HEYWOOD TOWNSHIP COMMITTEE - APPOINTMENTS 2014/15 93 The Committee considered the report of the Deputy Chief Executive seeking nominations to the various Township Sub-Committees, Other Bodies and Charitable Trusts. DECIDED – that the appointments for 2014/2015 Municipal Year be as follows:
Heywood Township Delegated Sub-Committee Councillor Dutton, (Chair) and Councillor McCarthy (Vice Chair), Councillors Beswick, Susan Emmott, Lambert, O’Rourke, Robinson, Rush and Wardle.
Heywood Township Planning Sub-Committee Councillor Lambert, (Chair) and Councillor Rush (Vice Chair), Councillors McCarthy, Robinson, O’Rourke and Susan Emmott.
Other Bodies and Charitable Trusts
East Lancashire Railway Trust – Councillor Dutton and Mr B. Davies.
Heywood Magic Board – Councillors Dutton, Susan Emmott, Robinson and Wardle.
Heywood Charitable Trust – Membership noted.
Township Older Person’s Champion – Councillor Robinson
Heywood War Memorial Committee – The Council’s Armed Forces Representative, The Chair of the Lancashire Veterans Association, A representative of the Royal British Legion and a representative of the SSAFA (Soldiers, Sailors and Airmen’s Family Association)
NO WAITING AT ANY TIME RESTRICTION - BARLEY HALL STREET, FOLD STREET AND HAROLD LEES ROAD, HEYWOOD. 94 The Committee considered the report of the Director of Economy and Environment which outlined the proposals for a ‘no waiting at any time’ restriction on Barley Hall Street, Fold Street and Harold Lees Road, Heywood.
The report informed of the proposals that had already been presented to the Committee, as detailed in Appendix A and B to the submitted report and the amendment that had been made to the original proposals as detailed in Appendix A and B as detailed in Appendix C to the submitted report.
Page 54
The purpose of the report was to inform the Committee of the amended proposal and to request a decision on whether to approve, or reject the restrictions following consideration of the objections and responses received. DECIDED – that the Committee approves the ‘no waiting at any time’ restriction on Barley Hall Street, Fold Street and Harold Lees Road as detailed in Appendix B to the submitted report. Eligible for call in - yes
HEYWOOD TOWNSHIP FUNDS 2014/15 95 The Township Committee considered a report of the Deputy Chief Executive which advised Members of a review of revenue and capital expenditure during 2013/2014, provided options for the allocation of funds in 2014/2015 and sought Members approval of Heywood Township Funds terms and conditions and the delegation arrangements concerning funding decisions. DECIDED – that (1) the expenditure, commitments and balances for Heywood Township Revenue and Capital Funds at the end of the 2013/2014 Financial Year as detailed at Appendix 1 and 2 of the submitted report be noted; (2) the findings of the review of Township Funds 2013/2014 as detailed at Appendix 3 of the submitted report and the feedback received to date for some of the projects funded during 2013/2014 as detailed at Appendix 4 of the submitted report be noted; (3) the allocation of Heywood Township Funds to funding streams in 2014/2015 as detailed in Appendix 5 of the submitted report be approved; (4) the terms and conditions for Heywood Township Revenue and Capital Funds for 2014/2015 as detailed in Appendix 6 of the submitted report be approved; and (5) the delegation arrangements for Heywood Township Funds 2014/2015 as detailed in paragraph 3.6 of the submitted report be agreed. Eligible for call in - yes
HEYWOOD MEMORIAL GARDENS UPGRADE - FUNDING 96 The Township Committee considered a report of the Deputy Chief Executive which sought approval for the allocation of additional funding of £34253 to complete the upgrade of Heywood Memorial Gardens. DECIDED – that approval for the additional funding of £34253 be granted with £15253 coming from Heywood Township Capital Funds and £19000 coming from Heywood Township World War 1 Capital Fund. This approval is granted subject to discussions with Environmental Management. Eligible for call in - yes
SCHOOL GOVERNING BODY VACANCIES. 97 The Township Committee considered a report of the Service Director for Early Help and Schools that sought a nomination to the Governing Body of St Michael’s CE Primary School, Bamford. DECIDED – that Mrs H Lambert be appointed to the Governing Body of St Michael’s CE Primary School, Bamford.
Page 55 Agenda Item 4
HEYWOOD TOWNSHIP DELEGATED SUB- COMMITTEE
MINUTES OF MEETING Tuesday, 1st July 2014
PRESENT: Councillor Dutton (In the Chair); Councillors Susan Emmott, Lambert, O'Rourke, Rush and Wardle.
OFFICERS: Stuart Hay (Corporate Services).
ALSO IN ATTENDANCE: Alan Webster (Economy and Environment Services).
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE: Councillor Beswick, McCarthy and Robinson.
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST 23 Councillor Colin Lambert declared a personal interest in the Little Monkeys application - HP/06/14, insofar as he was a founder Member of the Charity but was no longer a Member.
Councillor Peter Rush declared a personal and prejudicial interest in the Heywood Charities Fete application – HP/02/14 insofar as he is a Member of the Charities Fete and therefore did not take part in the discussion or vote.
ADDITIONAL ITEMS 24 In accordance with Council Procedure Rule 25.1, the Chair indicated that there were one additional item of business to be considered (agenda item 3), namely the approval of funding for a Union and Town Flag. The grounds for urgency were that the Sub-Committee were required to make a determination thereon prior to the next scheduled meeting of the Sub-Committee.
MINUTES OF MEETING HELD ON 18TH MARCH 2014 25 DECIDED – that the minutes of the meeting of the Heywood Township Delegated Sub-Committee held on the 18th March 2014 be approved as a correct record.
HEYWOOD TOWNSHIP FUNDS 2014/15 26 The Sub-Committee considered a report of the Deputy Chief Executive which updated Members on the revenue and capital expenditure, commitments and balances of Heywood Township Funds 2014/2015, and which enabled Members to allocate funds to proposed schemes.
The recommendations were presented as the management of the Heywood Township Fund is a function delegated to the Heywood Township Delegated Sub- Committee.
Heywood Township Funds are allocated to projects/schemes that benefit the Township’s community and environment, and realise the Township’s priorities. The recommendations would also enable the Sub-Committee to monitor and review the use of the Heywood Township Funds to ensure their continued efficient and effective use of Township Funds.
Alternatives considered: There were no alternatives considered. In considering the report and additional applications reported at the meeting, Members have delegated authority whether or not to approve the allocation of funds to projects/schemes as appropriate.
Page 56
The Committee received representations from applicants in respect of The Little Monkeys, Recovery Republic and the Heywood Charities Fete applications.
The Sub-Committee were updated in relation to the installation of six bollards at the junction of Highfield Avenue and Higher Lomax Lane, Summit, Heywood requesting, that Members were asked to note that the three West Ward Councillors had approved £1500 for the project from the West Ward Funds.
DECIDED – that (1) the expenditure, commitments and balances for Heywood Township Revenue and Capital Funds, as outlined in appendices 1, 2 and 2A of the report be noted; (2) The decisions made under delegated authority as outlined in appendix 3 of the submitted report be noted; (3) it be noted that the Lead Township Officer had assessed the proposed projects to be considered for funding, against the criteria of the Heywood Township Fund, priorities of the Township Plan and any specific risks had been identified, (as detailed in Appendix 4 of the submitted report; (4) applications for Township Funds, outlined in appendix 4 of the submitted report); and as, verbally updated by the Township Management Officer, be dealt with as follows:- (a) £500 be approved from the Project Fund for the Equalities Listening Event. (b) The application from Heywood Charities Fete be declined and applicants to be advised to resubmit a new application to reflect more provision of a community event to a future meeting of the Heywood Delegated Sub- Committee. (c) The application for a Traffic Regulation Order at the Harefield Drive be declined. (d) The application for the investigation into the parking issues on Hornby Street be declined. (e) £1,250 be approved from the Project Fund for the Recovery Republic Community Interest Company 2 nd Year Anniversary Awareness event. (f) The application for the Little Monkey’s Charity Shop Awareness Promotion be declined. (g) £252.00 be approved from the Project Fund for the purchase of a new Union flag and a new Town flag for the Heywood Memorial Gardens. Eligible for Call in - Yes
Page 57 Agenda Item 5
Subject: Budget 2015/16 to 2017/18 Guidelines Status: For Publication and Timetable
Report to: Cabinet Date: 14 th July 2014 Heywood Township Committee 14 th July 2014 Pennines Township Committee 15 th July 2014 Rochdale Township Committee 16 th July 2014 Middleton Township Committee 17 th July 2014
Cabinet Member: Cabinet Member for Finance
Report of: Director of Finance Author : Vicky Crossland
Author Email: [email protected] Tel: 01706 925409
Comments from Statutory Officers: Yes Key Decision: Yes
1 Purpose of Report
1.1 To recommend the budget guidelines and timetable to be used in preparing the detailed 2015/16 budget and provisional budgets for 2016/17 and 2017/18.
2 Recommendations
2.1 The proposed budget timetable detailed at Appendix 1 be approved.
2.2 The revenue assumptions detailed in paragraph 3.4 be incorporated into the budget setting process.
2.3 The revenue budget principles referred to in paragraph 3.6.1 be approved.
2.4 The capital budget principles referred to in paragraph 3.6.2 be approved.
2.5 Reason for recommendation
2.6 To approve the proposed timetable and planning process for setting the 2015/16 Budget and Provisional Budgets for 2016/17 and 2017/18.
3 Main Text including alternatives considered/consultation carried out
3.1 Alternatives and Risks considered 3.1.1 The Council is legally obliged to set a balanced budget. The budget setting process is complex and must be undertaken in a planned way. It is equally important that assumptions used in the preparation of the budget are agreed, reasonable and consistently applied by all services.
Page 58
3.1.2 The budget forecast has been based on a number of assumptions, known levels of expenditure and anticipated levels of resources. The budget assumptions at this stage of the process are based on intelligence received from a number of sources including proposals made locally. Final confirmation of these assumptions will not be received / finalised until November/December this year. There are a number of areas of the Council’s budget where risks to the projections contained in this report have been identified. The most significant of these are:-
• The Finance Settlement for Rochdale Borough Council - The provisional level of resources received from Central Government from the Revenue Support Grant may be different to those assumed. The level of resources assumed in the budget, reflect the levels announced in the provisional figures in January 2014 by the Department of Communities and Local Government. The decrease assumed for 2016/17 is 18.5% increasing to 28.5% for 2017/18. • The Council Tax Localisation required Local Authorities to move from a Council Tax Benefit Scheme to a Council Tax Support Scheme during April 2013. The scheme is currently being reviewed and if the burden is reduced and a more favourable scheme for Council Tax Payers is approved this will reduce the amount of Council Tax received. The level of income and the support awarded may differ from the assumptions contained in the budget gap for 2015/16 and 2016/17 which mirror the scheme approved for 2014/15. • Monitoring of the 2014/15 budget will provide Cabinet with regular updates on any pressures/ savings for the Council. Any associated on going implications will be incorporated into the budget projections for 2015/16 and future years. • Savings – The level of savings required for 2015/16, 2016/17 and 2017/18 are currently being considered. There is a risk to the overall budget of the non- achievement of these savings due to the identification and/or implementation of the proposals. A two year budget is to be set in February 2015 which provides time to implement the level of savings required to balance the budget over the period 2015/16 and 2016/17. • Specific Grants –The number and amount of specific grants received by the Council may be lower/higher than anticipated. The budget assumes no increase or reduction in specific grants. If the grant increases, a process has been introduced to review all additional income received and the expenditure which this income may fund before the service may incur additional expenditure. If the grant decreases, the associated expenditure must also be reduced to reflect the reduction in the grant received. • Council Tax – Central Government provided a cap on the amount of Council Tax increase a Local Authority could make before a referendum of the local residents was required. The budget assumes no increase in 2015/16 however for 2016/17 and future years an increase of 1.99% is currently assumed. This assumption will be reviewed as further announcements are made on both a Referendum and Council Tax Freeze Grants for the relevant years. • Council Services- The impact of the economic climate on the residents of Rochdale Borough and the increased demand this may have for Council services could impact on cost of services as could general demographic changes. • Waste Disposal Levy –The waste disposal levy is calculated by a formula across Greater Manchester (GM) which takes account of recycling levels. Should Rochdale Borough not increase recycling at the same level as other GM Authorities this will impact on the levy and would lead to an increased cost to Rochdale Borough Council’s budget.
Page 59 • Inflation - Impact of changes in the price of goods and services used by the Council compared to the % assumed in the budget projections. • Fees and charges income – Impact of any economic slowdown on levels of usage of charged for Council services could lead to income levels not being achieved. • Investment income – Impact of low interest rates and implications of the economic slowdown on the level of dividends/ interest received by the Council.
3.2 Consultation Undertaken/Proposed: 3.2.1 Stakeholders are consulted at appropriate stages throughout the budget preparation process.
3.2.2 Consultation with the Trade Unions via the JCC will be undertaken and the outcome of consultations will be considered by the Equalities and Employment Committee.
3.3 Introduction 3.3.1 Timetable 3.3.2 The Council’s budget must be approved by full Council before 11th March each year. This is a statutory requirement. The process begins in June with approval being sought for the assumptions and principles on which the budget is based. Proposals for savings and budget pressures are presented compared to estimates of the level of resources resulting in an identification of any budget gap. Throughout the year we consult on the budget and update projections where necessary for the Government Funding settlement and other known changes, including local decisions. The updated budget and feedback from consultations are reported back to Cabinet in January with recommendations for Budget Fixing Council. who will in turn set the budget. Services are notified of their resource allocations following Budget Fixing Council in February/March. The full budget timetable is detailed at Appendix 1.
3.4 Revenue Budget Assumptions for 2015/16 – 2017/18 3.4.1 The Council while setting the budget is working within a time of significant financial uncertainty and risk. The potential implications to the Council of the Chancellor’s Autumn statement and the proposed reduction in Central Government’s departmental budgets, could be significant. The impact for individual Local Authorities will not be known until provisional figures are released in late November/December 2014, at this stage we expect to receive provisional figures for 2015/16 and 2016/17. The Chancellor has announced in his Spring Statement that the level of reduction would be at the same rate as over the current parliament. The new efficiency programmes for Government Departments for 2016/17 onwards are being developed by Central Government and will be announced in the Autumn Statement 2014. 3.4.2 The timing of the provisional Funding Settlement in late November/ December 2014 means that this report is based on the available information at this point in time. Future reports will make Cabinet aware of any changes that impact on the current budget assumptions. 3.4.3 As part of the budget setting process the Council makes a number of assumptions in respect of the key elements of the Council’s revenue budget. The following paragraphs in this section outline the areas where these assumptions are made. Appendix 2 provides a summary of these assumptions for 2015/16, 2016/17 and 2017/18. 3.4.4 Council Tax
Page 60 The budget assumes no increase in Council Tax for 2015/16, and an increase in 2016/17, and 2017/18 of 1.99%. Central Government has announced a plan to freeze Council Tax for 2015/16 and will provide a Council Tax Freeze Grant of 1% for this financial year. If Members of Full Council decide to accept the freeze Grant for 2015/16 this will cause a further pressure to the budget gap of £532k. Central Government may only provide the Council Tax Freeze Grant for 12 months and if this is the case then there will be a further pressure on the budget of £805k in future years from accepting this grant. Any variation in the level of Council Tax or compensation received will have an impact on the forecast budget position. 3.4.5 Taxbase Our Taxbase is 50,497 and is the number of Band D equivalent properties that we collect Council Tax from. The Council Tax base will be reviewed and formally considered by Licensing and Regulatory Committee in January 2015. The level of Council tax base is a key component in the calculation of resources available to the Council.
3.4.6 Pay Inflation The budget assumes that the pay award will be 1% for 2015/16 to 2017/18. Any settlement above 1% will increase the expenditure requirement for 2015/16. Every change of 0.5% equates to approximately £325k.
3.4.7 Superannuation Rates The employer superannuation contribution rate increases are 0.9% in 2015/16 and 0.8% in 2016/17. These are based on the advice by Greater Manchester Pension Fund (GMPF). The next valuation of the fund is due in 2016, therefore the rate of increase assumed for 2017/18 is 0.9%.
3.4.8 Price Inflation The budget assumes 0% inflation across the majority of the Council’s non-pay expenditure budgets including grants that the Council gives out. Contractual arrangements and other significant inflation issues will be considered on a case by case basis,
3.4.9 Discretionary Fees and Charges Fees and Charges are reviewed on an annual basis and in recent years services have been issued with a target amount to increase income by. For 2015/16 to 2017/18 the amount of increase is recommended to be 2%.
3.4.10 Waste Disposal The Waste Disposal Levy (WDL) provided for in the 2014/15 budget assumed a 3% increase over the previous year. It is also currently anticipated that there will be a reduction in 2015/16. This will be subject to consideration/agreement as a consequence of the Waste Disposal Authority’s 2015/16 budget setting process and consideration of referendum levels.
3.4.11 Passenger Transport Levy The Passenger Transport Levy (PTL) provided for in the 2014/15 budget assumed no increase over the previous year. It is also currently anticipated that there will not be an increase for 2015/16. This will be subject to consideration/agreement as a consequence of the Passenger Transport Authority’s 2015/16 budget setting process and consideration of referendum levels.
Page 61 3.4.12 Budget Pressures The budget is presented with a provision of £2m to meet any unforeseen significant budget pressures in 2015/16 and future years. It is prudent to assume this level of resource will be required in future years.
3.5 Capital 3.5.1 A review of the capital programme is currently being undertaken. This review will provide a three year capital programme for 2015/16 to 2017/18 taking into consideration the estimated reduction in capital resources and the limited revenue funding available for Capital Schemes in these years. A report to Cabinet in September will recommend a Capital Programme for 2015/16 to 2017/18 for consideration this will then be considered for submission as part of the 2015/16 budget consultation.
3.5.2 Aims of the Capital Programme
The Capital Programme aims to deliver:
• Investment in the Borough to support the Borough wide priorities including economic benefit to the Borough • Investment in Service Provision to deliver future savings • Maintain and enhance the Council’s assets • Support Devolution • Meet Statutory provision • Provide Value for Money
3.6 Budget Principles 3.6.1 Detailed guidelines are provided to all relevant staff to ensure that revenue budgets for individual services are prepared consistently. These guidelines contain details of the assumptions that are to be made in setting the revenue budget and also set out broad principles that are to be adhered to. The principles that are proposed for inclusion in the budget guidelines for 2015/16 to 2017/18 are provided at Appendix 3.
3.6.2 The Capital Principles have been developed to enable focus on the purpose of the Capital Programme and to seek agreement for the use of limited resources. The principles for the Capital Programme are provided at Appendix 4.
3.7 Conclusions 3.7.1 This is an initial report on the budget process which identifies the decision making timetable, assumptions and principles.
3.7.2 The forecasts will be refined over the coming months and further reports will be presented to Cabinet leading up to the approval of the budget and Council Tax in February 2015.
4 Financial Implications
4.1 See the main body of the report.
5 Legal Implications
5.1 The Council is under a duty to calculate it budget in accordance with Section 32 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 and must make three calculations namely an
Page 62 estimate of the Council’s gross revenue expenditure, an estimate of anticipated income and a calculation of the difference between the two. The amount of the budget requirement must be sufficient to meet the Council’s budget commitments and ensure a balanced budget. The amount of the budget requirement must leave the Council with adequate financial reserves. The level of budget requirement must not be unreasonable having regard to the Council’s fiduciary duty to its Council Tax payers and non-domestic rate payers.
6 Personnel Implications
6.1 The report outlines the proposed timetable for preparing the detailed 2015/16 budget and this timetable includes the requirement to undertake formal workforce consultation with the staff and trade unions. The consultation will be undertaken in accordance with the Council’s established formal staff consultation processes including meetings of the Joint Consultative Committee and Service Consultative Groups.
7 Corporate Priorities
7.1 This report meets all the corporate priorities identified in the Council’s Corporate Plan. This report supports governance arrangements remaining strong during this period of significant change.
8 Risk Assessment Implications
8.1 There are a number of risks identified with this report as outlined below:-
• Decisions may not be taken in a timely manner to ensure that a balanced budget is set. The approval of the timetable attached at appendix 1 will mitigate this risk. • A number of risks are contained in section 3 and these will be reviewed throughout the budget cycle.
9 Equalities Impacts
9.1 Workforce Equality Impacts Assessment
9.1.1 Workforce equality impact assessments will be provided with any savings proposals and an overall workforce equality impact assessment on the budget will be presented to facilitate final decision making.
9.2 Equality/Community Impact Assessments
9.2.1 Equality Impact assessments will be provided with any savings proposals and an overall equality impact assessment on the budget will be presented to facilitate final decision making.
Page 63 APPENDIX 1 Budget Timetable for 2015/16 to 2017/18 Budgets
To follow
Page 64 APPENDIX 2
Budget Assumptions 2015/16, 2016/17 and 2017/18
15/16 16/17 17/18 Area of Budget Assumption Assumption Assumption
1.99% 1.99% Council Tax 0% Increase Increase
28.4% 17.9% 28.5 % Revenue Support Grant decrease decrease decrease
Business Rates 2.7% 0% 0% (NNDR) Increase
2.7% Top Up Grant 0% 0% Increase
14.3% 8.2% 11.7% Settlement Funding overall overall overall Overall Impact decrease decrease decrease
20.6% 6.1% General Grants 0% increase increase Pay 1% Increase 1% Increase 1% Increase
0.9% 0.8% 0.9% Superannuation Increase Increase Increase (18.9%) (19.7%) (20.6%) Contribution Rate (contribution) (contribution) (contribution)
Prices 0% 0% 0% Discretionary Fees & 2% Increase 2% Increase 2% Increase Charges 2.19 % 0.21 % 2.00% Waste Disposal Levy Decrease Decrease Increase 2.09% 2.00% PTA Levy 0% Increase Increase
Page 65
APPENDIX 3
REVENUE BUDGET 2015/16 TO 2017/18 – PRINCIPLES
1. Budget Preparation
1.1 Service estimates are required at service level for the years 2015/16 through to 2017/18. The format of the service submissions, which are to be supported by appropriate working papers, will be determined by the Director of Finance in consultation with Directors.
1.2 Estimate preparation should take account of technical guidance issued from time to time on local authority accounting practices and other related issues.
1.3 The budget process shall adhere to the approved timetable.
2 Existing Service Level Budgets
2.1 The budget will initially be prepared on the basis that current resources support existing service levels and with the exception of the schools budget should be varied to reflect:
(a) The full year effect of previous year’s savings proposals. (b) Consequences of the approved capital programme. (c) Adjustments in relation to specific ‘one year only’ allocations and other time expired funding. (d) Other specific Council decisions.
2.2 Most education and related budgets are funded through a specific grant namely the Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG). Separate systems and procedures relating to DSG funded budgets operate outside of the mainstream budget guidelines.
2.3 Salary budgets are to be prepared with reference to the 2014/15 budget (net of any vacancy factor) adjusted for pay awards, approved service changes, savings and other approved variations. The salary budgets can only be used to employ staff in established posts on approved grades in line with the following conditions:
(a) All changes to the establishment where Council funding is available in full must be approved by the Equalities and Employment Committee, or within the requirements of the Scheme of Delegation. (b) All changes to the establishment where resource implications arise, even if the costs are met entirely from external funding, must also be approved by Cabinet, or within the requirements of the Scheme of Delegation. (c) Posts funded from external sources must be established as temporary or specific purpose posts unless it can be demonstrated that: • the external funding is permanent or • specific approval has been given, or • future years costs can be contained within current budgets.
Page 66 (d) Directors must balance service requirements against the need to manage within their budgets when taking decisions to fill vacant posts or employ temporary staff.
3 Discretionary Fees and Charges
3.1 Fees and charges must be reviewed on an annual basis. A report should be submitted by each Director to the Cabinet in September each year on proposals for the following year.
3.2 Fees and charges are to be varied to achieve an overall annual increase in income for each Service in line with the level approved by Cabinet. Increases can be implemented at any time subject to the overall financial target being achieved.
3.3 If the target cannot be achieved by increasing fees and charges then alternative savings must be identified. Claims by Directors to exempt or apply a lesser increase to any part of their service must be justified in the context of their Service policies and plans and referred to Cabinet.
4 External Funding
4.1 Wherever possible external funding should be used to reduce pressure on current expenditure, thereby releasing resources for redirection into priority areas.
4.2 All legal, human resources, financial and administrative support costs required to manage grant conditions and fulfill the role of the accountable body should be charged, wherever possible, against the funding regime.
5 Consultation
5.1 Members will take account of consultations with stakeholders at appropriate stages throughout the budget preparation process. This will include Townships, Overview and Scrutiny Committee, Trade Unions, Local Strategic Partnership, other partners and the public.
Page 67
APPENDIX 4
CAPITAL PROGRAMME PRINCIPLES
1. Capital Programme Preparation
1.1 The Capital Programme is compiled at project level for the years 2015/16 through to 2017/18. The format of the capital schemes submissions, which are to be supported by appropriate working papers, will be determined by the Director of Finance in consultation with Directors.
1.2 Estimate preparation should take account of technical guidance issued from time to time on local authority accounting practices and other related issues. The profiling of capital expenditure into the correct financial years and over the projects development will be key to ensure the amount of re phasing of capital resources from one year to another is kept to a minimum, and to reduce the amount of revenue budget required to finance the project.
1.3 The budget process shall adhere to the approved timetable.
2. Principles for the Capital Programme
2.1 Capital Resources are to be used as follows:
• Capital Receipts are first considered to repay borrowing and therefore reduce the revenue budget requirement
• Un-ring fenced and ring fenced externally funded grants are considered on a case by case basis
• Any new borrowing is considered with the implications for the revenue budget position
2.2 Capital projects for approval are:
• Considered by Portfolio Holder’s for the service who agree to the services requests for funding
• Completed to ensure all implications of the Capital Scheme are included in the “Business Cases”
• Inclusive of Multi Year Schemes with the spend profiled accurately across the financial years
Page 68 Agenda Item 7
Subject: Armed Forces Community Covenant, Status: For Publication WW1 Commemorations and Armed Forces Fund Report
Report to : Heywood Township Committee Date: Monday, 14 July 2014 Pennines Township Committee Tuesday 15 th July 2014 Rochdale Township Committee Wednesday 16 July 2014 Middleton Township Committees Thursday 17 July 2014
Cabinet Member: Councillor Alan McCarthy, Lead Member for Armed Forces
Report of: Acting Chief Executive Author : Valery White
Author Email: [email protected] Tel: 01706 924858
Comments from Statut ory Section 151 Officer Officers: Monitoring Officer Key Decision: No
1. Purpose of Report
1.1 Members to be updated on Rochdale’s commitment to the Armed Forces Community Covenant, the Boroughwide World War One commemoration projects/events that have taken place or planned in the coming months and inform Members of progress on allocating each Township’s £20k Corporate Capital fund to schemes.
2. Recommendations
2.1 Members note the information contained within the report.
3. Reason for recommendation
3.1 In December 2012 Rochdale signed the Armed Forces Community Covenant, a voluntary statement of mutual support between the borough and the Services. It is important that Members are regularly updated on activities that have taken place, and activities planned in the future, to ensure that Rochdale delivers on its commitment to the covenant.
4. Background
4.1 The Rochdale Armed Forces Community Covenant
The aims of the covenant are to: • Encourage local communities and the Armed Forces community to provide each other with support. • Promote awareness amongst communities of the issues affecting the Armed Forces in the borough of Rochdale. Page 69 • Recognise and remember the sacrifices made by the Armed Forces community. • Encourage activities which help integrate the Armed Forces community into local life.
Achievements since Rochdale entered into the covenant include:
• In January 2014 RRG Toyota became the first business organisation in Rochdale to sign the Armed Forces Corporate Covenant. The company provide a free vehicle wash and vacuum service for all Armed Forces personnel and veterans, together with special car deals. Toyota have recently provided work experience to a former Armed Forces member and will guarantee an interview to those with a military background who meet the person specification for a wide range of jobs in their latest recruitment. • Rochdale confirmed in January 2014 that it would continue to offer serving Armed Forces personnel free use of fitness facilities and swimming pools in Council buildings to the end of 2014. • In May 2014 Lance Corporal Joel Halliwell V.C (Middleton’s only Victoria Cross recipient) was recognised in the town with the unveiling of a street sign in his honour in the town centre. Corporation Street will now forever be known as L.Cpl. Joel Halliwell V.C. Way. • Flag Raising Events took place in all four Townships on 23rd June 2014 to mark the beginning of Armed Forces Week that raises public awareness of the contribution made to our country by those who serve and have served in Her Majesty's Armed Forces. Also the event is an opportunity to 'show your support' for the men and women who make up the Armed Forces community from currently serving troops to Service families and from veterans to cadets. • On 24th August 2014 there will be a street re-naming in Heywood in honour of Pte Palmer VC.
4.2 World War One Commemorations
Activities/events delivered or planned that provide an opportunity for the community to reflect on the impact of conflict and remember those who lived, fought and died in the First World War include:
• Poppy seed planting throughout the Borough has taken place; all schools received a ‘poppy pack’ which they planted in and around their areas. • A school poetry competition was launched. • In August 2014 there will be reflection ceremonies and candlelit services taking place throughout the Borough. • The Corps of Drums will have a dedicated stand at the Feel Good Festival. • In September 2014, Heywood will host a parade to mark the 70th anniversary of Arnhem. • On 1st November 2014 Rochdale Town Hall will host a festival of remembrance concert. • Throughout 2014-2018 a number of projects will take place including a medal display at Rochdale Town Hall. Library and Link4Life events throughout the Borough, and various schools will take part in Centenary Battlefield Tours.
4.3 Townships Armed Forces Funds
Each Township was allocated £20k for the period 2014-18 from the Corporate Capital Budget to commemorate the centenary of the First World War through the updating and enhancing of memorials and introducing new memorials. Some Townships have identified projects and others are in the process of submitting projects to Committees for consideration. Page 70
Township Committees in June 2014 agreed the application process for allocation of these funds would be the same administrative procedures for Township Funds.
Projects agreed to date or submitted for decision are detailed in the table below:
Township Project Cost Status Heywood Heywood Memorial Gardens £19,000 Approved Upgrade Middleton No projects identified Pennines Littleborough & Milnrow War £1,275 Approved Memorials Planters Rochdale Christ Church War Memorial £938 Awaiting decision Upgrade
Memorial Gardens World War Awaiting costs Awaiting application One Project Bench
Members are reminded that these funds are committed for the period 2014-2018, therefore, there is no urgency to allocate or agree schemes.
Members are invited to forward details of any potential Capital projects to the appropriate Township Office and Officers will facilitate the application process and arrange for the proposed projects to be submitted to Committee for decision.
5. Alternatives considered
5.1 No alternatives have been considered.
6. Financial Implications
6.1 Committee will receive regular reports to enable Members to monitor the use of the Armed Forces Fund to ensure best use of available resources.
6.2 Armed Forces Funds will be monitored on a monthly basis and financial monitoring reports will be presented to future Committees.
7. Legal Implications
7.1 There are no legal implications arising from this report.
8. Personnel Implications
8.1 There are no personnel implications arising from this report.
9. Corporate Priorities
9.1 The purpose of the Armed Forces Fund is to enable Township Committees to deliver appropriate projects to commemorate the centenary period of the First World War. This report asks Members to note how those funds are allocated in order to achieve this purpose.
9.2 The Vision and Blueprint for Rochdale Council 2014/15 retains Township Committees and will devolve a range of services to Township direction, managed through annual Township Plans which are reviewed on a quarterly basis.
10. Risk Assessment Implications
Page 71 10.1 There are no risk assessment implications arising from this report.
11. Equalities Impacts
11.1 Workforce Equality Impacts Assessment
There are no workforce equality issues arising from this report.
11.2 Equality/Community Impact Assessments
There are no equality/community issues arising from this report.
Background Papers Document Place of Inspection None N/A
Page 72 Agenda Item 9
Subject: Need for Additional Secondary School Status: For Publication Places 2015-2024
Report to : Heywood Township Committee Date: Monday, 14 July 2014 Pennines Township Committee Tuesday,15 July 2014 Rochdale Township Committee Wednesday, 16 July 2014 Middleton Township Committee Thursday, 17th July 2014
Cabinet Member: Cabinet member for Children Schools and Families
Report of: Director- Children’s Services Author: Chris Swift School Organisation & Development Author Email: [email protected] Manager
Tel: 01706 925016
Comments from Statutory Officers: Key Decision: No
1 Purpose of Report 1.1 The purpose of this report is to enable the Township Committees to give their views on the need for extra secondary school places from 2015 to 2019.
2 Recommendations
2.1 The Township Committees are asked to consider this report and to make such Comments as appropriate on the following proposals:-
* For Heywood Township up to an extra 30 Year 7 places are provided from 2017, either at Siddal Moor or Holy Family RC CE College;
* For Middleton Township an extra 30 Year 7 places are provided at each of St.Anne’s Academy from 2017 and Cardinal Langley RC High School from 2016;
* For Pennines Township an 30 extra places at each of Wardle Academy and Hollingworth Academy from 2015-2017, and further extra places for 2018 and 2019 are considered in the light of capacity in Pennines Township and proposals for extra places in Rochdale Township;
* For Rochdale Township an extra 60 places will be needed to meet Township demand in 2018 and 2019. The 4 schools in Rochdale Township to be possibly considered for the extra 30 places each are Falinge Park, Kingsway Park, Matthew Moss, and St.Cuthberts’ RC. Consideration also needs to be given to a further 60 extra places to meet growth across Pennines and Rochdale Townships for 2018 and 2019.
Page 73 Reason for recommendation 2.2 There is a need to consider providing additional Year 7 Secondary School places from 2015 across all townships in the Borough. The Local Authority convened a stakeholder working group to look at the issues, to put forward proposals to meet the demand and to consult publicly on them.
3 Background 3.1 The number of children expected to require Year 7 places in secondary schools across the Borough is expected to increase from 2,263 this school year to an estimated 2,819 by September 2019. The level of demand varies across the Borough and in some areas will continue beyond 2020. Attached to this report is a copy of the consultation report. The report puts forward a number of options to make sure there will be sufficient extra places to allow for parental preference and future within-year movements. The view of the working group is that extra places can be provided by expansion on current school sites.
Alternatives considered 3. 2 The Consultation Report attached puts forward a number of proposals to meet the demand for extra Year 7 places from 2015 onwards. There is an analysis, by Township, of these demand pressures, admissions trends and proposals to meet the increase in demand. The appendices to the report provide additional relevant information as follows:
Appendix One - Map of secondary schools in the Borough; Appendix Two - How many children are in our Secondary Schools at present (Jan.2014) Appendix Three - Current Physical and Admission capacities of Schools and diversity of Provision Appendix Four- A. How the pupil projections are developed B. School Capacity Data and Accommodation C. Housing Developments Appendix Five- Standards in Schools Appendix Six- School Place Demand- Admissions Preferences and Appeals 2011-2014 Appendix Seven- Equalities Impact Assessment Appendix Eight- Consultation response pro-formas
3.3 The Consultation Report shows that across the Borough there will be an increase in the number of Year 7 pupils in the secondary sector. Overall, there is enough space in the Borough’s 12 secondary schools to accommodate all that growth until 2017, after then more places will be needed. The graph below shows the Boroughwide position to 2019:
Page 74 School year 2013/14 2014/15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20
Year 7 Places 2550 2610 2610 2610 2610 2610 2610
Expected Pupils 2263 2382 2560 2533 2614 2769 2819
Extra Places Needed Enough places overall -4 -159 -209
3.4 The focus of the consultation report is the period 2015-2019, however it is important to consider the longer term increase in demand to 2024, where it is clear that further additional places will be needed. The graph below shows the overall demand and it reflects the current trend for a net loss in pupil numbers between Year6 and Year 7 each year of about 6%. The Township movement trends are described in the consultation report.
2013/14 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 BOROUGH 2011/12 2012/13 2017/18 2018/19 Year 6 Pupils 2468 2420 2392 2447 2622 2614 2693 2847 2892 2902 2942 2963 2982 2967 Year 7 Expected Pupils 2382 2560 2533 2614 2769 2819 2828 2805 2857 2866 2839 Year 7 Places 2570 2550 2550 2610 2610 2610 2610 2610 2610 2610 2610 2610 2610 2610 Extra Places Needed enough places overall -4 -159 -209 -218 -215 -247 -256 -229
3.5 Further consideration will be given in future years to extra secondary places from 2020 to 2024, taking account of the extra places that will be provided between now and then and any changes in demographic demand, or school organisation.
4 Financial Implications 4.1 Funding for additional school places is available through the Capital Allocation for Basic Needs from the Education Funding Agency. The current funding announcement covers the period to March 2018, and further funding is expected as part of the next funding settlement. Revenue funding for additional places will come through the Dedicated Schools Grant, which is ring-fenced for schools and largely determined by pupil numbers. As plans for the delivery of the required additional places are confirmed, further reports
Page 75 will be submitted, with further details of costs and funding.
5 Legal Implications 5.1 The Council has a statutory duty to ensure that there are sufficient school places for the number of school age pupils within the borough requesting a place in a secondary school. The Authority is also the strategic commissioner for new school places within its area. If new schools are proposed, current legislation sets out the arrangements for the establishment of new schools. The Local Authority will have a responsibility to provide additional school sites as and when required.
6 Personnel Implications 6.1 There are no direct personnel implications arising from this report. However, in the event that school(s) require additional staff to meet the increased future demands, the appropriate formal consultation will need to take place to amend their structures.
7 Corporate Priorities 7.1 The Proposals for consideration are consistent with the Corporate Priorities of People, Place, Prosperity & Public Service Reform as described in the Early Help and Schools Service Plan 2014-15 : EHS15 “Ensure that school place planning meets statutory requirements”.
8. Risk Assessment Implications 8.1 There are a number of risks to be considered in developing a strategy for additional secondary school places:
* Independent promoters bringing forward proposals for new school places which are not consistent with addressing the strategic need for additional places or the achievement of the objectives of the BSF Strategy for Change; * The availability, timing and level of significant capital funding from the Education Funding Agency to support 11-16 basic need may not be sufficient to meet the aspirations of providers ; * Whether schools and/or post 16 providers wish to collaborate in bringing forward proposals; * The longer term (post 2019) scale of additional demand for places in Middleton and the Rochdale/Pennines Townships.
9. Equalities Impacts 9.1 Workforce Equality Impacts Assessment There are no workforce equality issues arising from this report.
9.2 Equality/Community Impact Assessments The Equality Impact Assessment (EIA) is attached as Appendix Seven in the Consultation Report. The main points arising from the EIA are: * The additional secondary school places will improve parental preference in the Borough as well as ensuring that the Authority can meet its duty to provide enough school places. * Cabinet will be recommended to consider the report of the Working Group and the strategy to meet the increase in demand
Background Papers Document Place of Inspection There are no background papers to this report
Page 76
ROCHDALE MBC EARLY HELP and SCHOOLS
CONSULTATION REPORT ON THE NEED FOR EXTRA YEAR 7 ADMISSION PLACES BETWEEN 2015-2019
SECONDARY PLACE PLANNING GROUP 2nd June 2014
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
There is a need to consider providing additional secondary places across the Borough from September 2015 onwards. The Local Authority has set up a Working Group to consider this and to formulate proposals for public consultation.
In brief the number of children wanting Year 7 places in the Borough’s secondary schools will rise from 2,263 this school year to an estimated 2,819 by September 2019. The level of demand varies across the Borough, and in some areas growth will continue beyond 2020. The focus of the report covers the period to September 2019. The report puts forward a number of options to make sure that there are enough places to meet the minimum demand as well as enough extra places to allow for parental preference and future within year movements. The view of the Working Group is that extra places can be provided by expansion on current school sites.
The purpose of the consultation is to seek the views of interested parties on the proposals set out in the report, which can include alternative ideas to meet the need for extra places.
INTRODUCTION and BACKGROUND
1. This consultation report sets out details of the need for additional secondary school places in the period 2015-2019. Based on current projections additional Year 7 places will be needed in each Township in that period. The Local Authority has a statutory duty to secure sufficient school places in its area, and is the strategic commissioner for the provision of additional places that might be required.
2. In order to plan effectively to meet the expected increase in demand, in December 2013 Rochdale Local Authority set up a Stakeholder Group comprising representatives of Secondary Headteachers, College Principals, Elected Members, school governors, Primary Headteachers and Diocesan Authorities to look at the supply and demand for additional secondary school places.
3. The remit of the Group, therefore, was to look at the strategy for meeting the need for extra pupil places across the Borough over the next five years (2015 onwards), to consult on such revised proposals and report to the Executive Member Children
Page 77 Schools & Families on the outcomes of that consultation by Autumn 2014. The membership of the Group comprises:
• Executive member for Children Schools and Families, plus 3 elected Members nominated by the respective Group Leaders; • Assistant Director- Early Help and Schools; • 4 Secondary Headteachers nominated through the Pioneer Trust; • 1 person nominated by the Manchester Diocese (Church of England); • 1 person nominated by the Salford Diocese (Roman Catholic Church); • 1 Primary Headteacher (nominated by Rochdale Association of Primary Headteachers); • Principal Hopwood Hall College; • Principal Rochdale Sixth Form College • 1 School Governor nominated through the Independent Governor Forum
4. The purpose of this consultation paper is to present for public consultation proposals from the Working Group as to how many additional places ought to be provided, and where and when they should be provided.
5. Arrangements for responding to the consultation are set out later in the report.
SECONDARY SCHOOL PLACE DEMAND- BOROUGH OVERVIEW
6. The current provision of secondary places in the Borough is through 12 secondary schools. The location of these schools is shown on the map at Appendix One . The current numbers of children in these schools is shown as Appendix Two . The number of places available in each school, and the type of school is set out in Appendix Three . Details of how the Local Authority develops pupil number projections is set out at Appendix Four . The pupil number projections take account of past patterns of demand, and for secondary places goes up to September 2024.
EXPECTED DEMAND FOR YEAR 7 SECONDARY PLACES 2015-2019 7. From September 2014 the number of Year 7 pupils for admission to secondary schools will begin to increase across the Borough. Overall there is enough space in the secondary sector to accommodate the growth in intakes until 2017, after then more places will need to be available. The following graph shows the overall position to 2019.
Page 78
School year 2013/14 2014/15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20
Year 7 Places 2550 2610 2610 2610 2610 2610 2610
Expected Pupils 2263 2382 2560 2533 2614 2769 2819
Extra Places Needed Enough places overall -4 -159 -209
FUTURE DEMAND FOR PLACES 2020-2024 8. The pattern and extent of growth in demand is not evenly distributed across the townships and it is important to keep in mind the growth trend to September 2024. The following graph shows the overall long term demand which indicates that there will be high level of demand for extra places until 2024.
Page 79 2013/14 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 BOROUGH 2011/12 2012/13 2017/18 2018/19 Year 6 Pupils 2468 2420 2392 2447 2622 2614 2693 2847 2892 2902 2942 2963 2982 2967 Year 7 Expected Pupils 2382 2560 2533 2614 2769 2819 2828 2805 2857 2866 2839 Year 7 Places 2570 2550 2550 2610 2610 2610 2610 2610 2610 2610 2610 2610 2610 2610 Extra Places Needed enough places overall -4 -159 -209 -218 -215 -247 -256 -229
9. The above graph shows the overall net effect of movement in and out of the Borough between Year 6 and Year7. Each year this averages about 6%, so that in place planning terms the Local Authority does not expect to provide enough places for all children currently in Year 6 classes across the Borough. However, to take account of potential change to this trend, and allowance for parental preference and within year movement, the projections allow a margin of 3% for growth. Further background information on the movement of children across the borough boundary is set out in Appendix Four .
SECONDARY SCHOOL PLACE DEMAND- HEYWOOD TOWNSHIP
10. There are two secondary schools in Heywood Township, both substantially re- modelled and re-built under the Building Schools for the Future Programme. Siddal Moor is a Community School with 210 Year 7 places, and a total capacity of 1050 places. Holy Family Roman Catholic/Church of England College is a joint faith Voluntary Aided School with 120 Year 7 Places, a total capacity of 600 places.
EXPECTED DEMAND FOR YEAR 7 SECONDARY PLACES in HEYWOOD TOWNSHIP 2015-2019 11. In recent years there has been an increase in the number of children born in the Township, and this increase in numbers will move through to the secondary sector. At primary school level additional places were provided on a short term basis at Woodland Community Primary (CP) school and Harwood Park CP school. An additional 15 Reception class places have been provided at Hopwood CP school on a long term basis.
Page 80 12. The pie chart below shows the Heywood Year 6 pupil destinations for school year 2013-2014. It shows the proportion of pupils progressing to the township’s secondary schools, and those choosing to attend schools outside the Township and the Borough. This trend is looked at each year and is the basis for projecting future demand for places.
13. Overall there are enough secondary places in the township to 2018. However, from 2017 there may not be a sufficient margin to allow for parental preference, growth and within-year movement, and so the provision of additional Year 7 places needs to be considered for the period 2017-2019.
School year 2013/14 2014/15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 Year 7 Places 330 330 330 330 330 330 330 Expected Pupils 277 277 303 306 323 324 339
Page 81 Extra Places Needed Enough places overall 7 6 -9
FUTURE DEMAND FOR PLACES IN HEYWOOD TOWNSHIP 2020-2024 14. The expected demand for Year 7 places between 2020 and 2024 in Heywood is shown below. There will be a need to monitor changes in demand to ensure there are sufficient places overall, with a margin for flexibility.
2013/14 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2011/12 2012/13 2017/18 2018/19 Year 6 Pupils 354 361 304 302 330 334 353 354 370 354 338 371 356 351 Year 7 Expected Pupils 315 307 277 277 303 306 323 324 339 323 310 340 325 321 Year 7 Places 330 330 330 330 330 330 330 330 330 330 330 330 330 330 Extra Places Needed enough places overall 7 6 -9 7 20 -10 5 9
Summary and Proposals to meet the additional demand in Heywood Township 15. Whilst there are just enough places up to 2018, there may not be enough places to allow for parental preference, within-year growth or demand changes. Both Holy Family RC/CE College and Siddal Moor Sports College have indicated a willingness to accommodate more pupils.
16. The proposal therefore is that up to an extra 30 Year 7 places (One Form of Entry) are considered in the township, from 2017 onwards, to be provided at either Holy Family or Siddal Moor.
17. The outline proposal as it affects each Heywood Township econdary school is as follows: Holy Family RC/CE College (Voluntary Aided) Net Capacity: 600 Admit an extra 30 children in year 7 in each of September from
Page 82 2017/18 onwards. Published Admission This would probably require the provision of additional teaching Number: 120 space, for which a feasibility study will be needed. Views are needed on whether this accommodation should be considered as Current NOR- 589 permanent or temporary. As a Voluntary Aided School, the Governing Body is responsible
for admissions, and would need to formally agree to taking additional children Siddal Moor Sports College (Community) Net Capacity: 1050 Admit an extra 30 children in year 7 in each of September from 2017/18 onwards. Published Admission The extent of additional accommodation required will need to Number: 210 take account of overall number on roll in the school at the time of the required additional places. If the provision of additional teaching space is required, a feasibility study will be needed. Current NOR- 951 Views are needed on whether this accommodation should be considered as permanent or temporary.
SECONDARY SCHOOL PLACE DEMAND- MIDDLETON TOWNSHIP
18. There are three secondary schools in Middleton Township, two of these were substantially re-modelled and re-built under the Building Schools for the Future Programme, and St.Anne’s Academy is a new build school. Middleton Technology School is a Community School with 270 Year 7 places, and a total capacity of 1350 places. Cardinal Langley Roman Catholic High School with 180 Year 7 places and a total capacity of 900 places. The school has a Sixth Form. St.Anne’s Academy has 150 Year 7 places, and 30 of those places designated Foundation Places for children in families who are regular worshippers in the Anglican or other Christian churches. The school has a Sixth Form.
EXPECTED DEMAND FOR YEAR 7 SECONDARY PLACES in MIDDLETON TOWNSHIP 2015-2019 19. In recent years there has been a very significant increase in the number of children born in the Township and moving into the Township. This is reflected in the high level of additional secondary school places that will need to be provided from 2020 onwards. A large number of extra primary school places have been provided in the Township to meet the increase in birth-led demand and inward movement.
20. The pie chart below shows the Middleton Year 6 pupil destinations for school year 2013-2014. It shows the proportion of pupils progressing to the township’s secondary schools, and those choosing to attend schools outside the Township and the Borough. This trend is looked at each year and is the basis for projecting future demand for places. The township not only retains 9 out of 10 Year 6 children, it also draws pupils from Heywood and Rochdale Townships as well as from outside the Borough.
Page 83
21. Overall there are enough places in the township to 2016, because 60 extra Year 7 places became available after the closure of the Sixth Form at Middleton Technology School. However, from 2017 there will not be sufficient places to meet demand and to provide a margin to allow for parental preference, growth and within-year movement. On the basis of current projections an extra 60 Year 7 places need to be considered for the period 2017-2019.
School year 2013/14 2014/15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 Year 7 Places 540 600 600 600 600 600 600 Expected Pupils 510 503 568 552 596 639 629 Extra Places Needed Enough places overall 4 -39 -29
FUTURE DEMAND FOR PLACES IN MIDDLETON TOWNSHIP 2020-2024 22. The growth in demand for Year 7 places is expected to continue through to 2024 and beyond. The level of this growth needs to be taken into account in forming proposals to meet demand growth up to 2019, since it is clear that further places will be needed for the period 2020-2024.
Page 84
2013/14 2013/14 2014/15 2019/20 2015/16 2015/16 2016/17 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2011/12 2012/13 2017/18 2018/19 Year 6 Pupils 471 450 485 471 532 518 559 599 590 607 695 699 712 691 Year 7 Expected Pupils 472 472 510 502 568 552 596 639 629 647 721 725 739 716 Year 7 Places 540 540 540 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 Extra Places Needed enough places overall 4 -39 -29 -47 -121 -125 -139 -116
Summary and Proposals to meet the additional demand in Middleton Township 23. An additional 60 Year 7 places need to be considered in Middleton between 2016 at the earliest, and certainly for 2017. Taking account of the 60 additional places at Middleton Technology School, it is not proposed that the school is asked to take more children. The two other schools in the township have both indicated a willingness to accommodate an extra 30 Year 7 children. 24. The proposal therefore is that an extra 60 Year 7 places (two forms of entry) are provided in the township, 30 places at each of Cardinal Langley RC High School, and St.Anne’s Academy.
25. The outline proposal as it affects each Middleton Township secondary school is as follows: Cardinal Langley RC High School (Voluntary Aided ) Net Capacity: 1060 Admit 30 children in Year 7 in each from September (inc. Sixth Form) 2016/17, taking account of the current numbers of children in Roman Catholic primary schools in the township. Published Admission This will require the provision of additional teaching space, Number: 180 for which a feasibility study will be needed. This accommodation should be considered as permanent. Current NOR- 919 As a Voluntary Aided School, the Governing Body is
Page 85 plus 152 Sixth Form responsible for admissions, and would need to formally agree to taking additional children. St Anne’s Academy High school (Academy) Net Capacity: 750 Admit 30 children in Year 7 in each from September (inc. Sixth Form) 2017/18 This will require the provision of additional teaching space, Published Admission for which a feasibility study will be needed. This Number: 150 accommodation should be considered as permanent. As an Academy School, the Academy Trust and Governing Current NOR- 570 Body are responsible for buildings and admissions, and would need to formally agree to taking additional children.
SECONDARY SCHOOL PLACE DEMAND- PENNINES TOWNSHIP
26. There are two secondary schools in Pennines Township both of which are academies and have been re-built and/or re-modelled under the Building Schools for the Future programme. Wardle Academy and Hollingworth Academy each have 240 Year 7 places, and a total capacity of 1200 places.
EXPECTED DEMAND FOR YEAR 7 SECONDARY PLACES in PENNINES TOWNSHIP 2015-2019 27. In recent years additional primary school places have been provided in across the Township in the Littleborough, Dearnley, Newhey and Milnrow areas. In some areas these are permanent additions to the places available.
28. The pie chart below shows the Pennines Township Year 6 pupil destinations for school year 2013-2014. It shows the proportion of pupils progressing to the township’s secondary schools, and those choosing to attend schools outside the Township and the Borough. This trend is looked at each year and is the basis for projecting future demand for places. The township not only retains more than 9 out of 10 Year 6 children, it also draws pupils from Heywood and Rochdale Townships as well as from outside the Borough. Most significantly it draws 10% of Rochdale Township Year 6 children.
Page 86
29. On the basis of current projections and to ensure there are sufficient Year 7 places across both townships, additional 60 places will be needed for 2015 and 2016. Both secondary schools have indicated a willingness to consider the admission of additional children.
School year 2013/14 2014/15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20
Year 7 Places 480 480 480 480 480 480 480 Expected Pupils 496 538 575 538 545 591 623 Extra Places Needed -58 -95 -58 -65 -111 -143
FUTURE DEMAND FOR PLACES IN PENNINES TOWNSHIP 2020-2024 30. The growth in demand for Year 7 places is expected to continue through to 2024 and beyond. The level of this growth needs to be taken into account in forming proposals to meet demand growth up to 2019, and in conjunction with demand in Rochdale Township, since it is clear that significant further places will be needed for the period 2020-2024.
Page 87
2013/14 2013/14 2014/15 2019/20 2015/16 2015/16 2016/17 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2011/12 2012/13 2017/18 2018/19 Year 6 Pupils 365 333 341 376 402 376 381 414 436 437 436 486 477 462 Year 7 Expected Pupils 455 452 496 538 575 538 545 591 623 624 604 674 661 640 Year 7 Places 470 480 480 480 480 480 480 480 480 480 480 480 480 480 - Extra Places Needed enough places overall -58 -95 -58 -65 -111 -143 -144 -124 -194 -181 160
Summary and Proposals to meet the additional demand in Pennines Township 31. The proposal for consultation is to provide an additional 60 places in the Township for the period to 2017, and that for the period 2018 and 2019 any further places would take account of the scope for additional capacity in Rochdale Township.
32. The proposal therefore is that an extra 60 Year 7 places (two forms of entry) are provided in the township, 30 places at each of Wardle Academy and Hollingworth Academy for the period to 2017 and beyond, and that for further extra places for 2018 and 2019 consideration is given to the scope for additional capacity either in the township secondary schools or the scope for additional places in Rochdale Township.
33. The outline proposal as it affects each Pennines Township secondary school is as follows: Wardle Academy (Academy) Net Capacity: 1200 Admit 30 children in Year 7 in each from September 2015/16. Published Admission This will require the provision of additional teaching space, Number: 240 for which a feasibility study will be needed. This
Page 88 accommodation should be considered as permanent. As an Current NOR- 1105 Academy School, the Academy Trust and Governing Body are responsible for buildings and admissions, and would need to formally agree to taking additional children. Hollingworth Academy Net Capacity: 1200 Admit 30 children in Year 7 in each from September 2015/16. Published Admission This will require the provision of additional teaching space, Number: 240 for which a feasibility study will be needed. This accommodation should be considered as permanent. As an Current NOR- 1195 Academy School, the Academy Trust and Governing Body are responsible for buildings and admissions, and would need to formally agree to taking additional children
SECONDARY SCHOOL PLACE DEMAND- ROCHDALE TOWNSHIP
34. There are five secondary schools in Rochdale Township, all of which have been rebuilt or remodelled under the Building Schools for the Future Programme, or in the case of Oulder Hill Community School and Language College, under the Schools PFI (Private Finance Initiative) Project. St.Cuthbert’s Roman Catholic Business and Enterprise College is a Voluntary Aided school and has 240 Year 7 places with a total capacity of 1200 places. Kingway Park High School is a Foundation School with a majority Trust and has 240 Year 7 places with a total capacity of 1200 places. Matthew Moss High School is a Community School with 180 Year 7 places and a total capacity of 900 places. Oulder Hill Community School & Language College is a Community School with 300 Year 7 places, a total capacity of 1500 places. Falinge Park High School and Performing Arts College is a Community School with 240 Year 7 places with a total capacity of 1200 places.
EXPECTED DEMAND FOR YEAR 7 SECONDARY PLACES in ROCHDALE TOWNSHIP 2015-2019 35. In Rochdale Township a significant number of extra primary school places were added to schools in the south and east of the township in particular, most of which were on a short term basis.
36. The pie chart below shows the Rochdale Year 6 pupil destinations for school year 2013-2014. It shows the proportion of pupils progressing to the township’s secondary schools, and those choosing to attend schools outside the Township and the Borough. This trend is looked at each year and is the basis for projecting future demand for places. The township currently retains just less than 8 out 10 Year 6 children. Most significant is the trend for 10% of year 6 children to seek places in Pennines Township secondary schools.
Page 89
37. On the basis of current projections and to ensure there are sufficient Year 7 places across the township, an additional 60 places will be needed for 2018 and 2019. At the latest. The secondary schools that would be possible locations for additional places have each indicated a willingness to accommodate additional children. The implications of additional demand for Pennines township growth arising from changes in demand in the Roman Catholic secondary sector, and patterns of demand arising from the Smallbridge and Kingsway areas of the Borough resulting in the need for a further 60 places needs to be considered.
School year 2013/14 2014/15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 Year 7 Places 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200 Expected Pupils 980 1065 1114 1137 1149 1214 1228 Extra Places Needed enough places overall to meet township need -14 -28
Page 90 FUTURE DEMAND FOR PLACES IN ROCHDALE TOWNSHIP 2020-2024 38. The growth in demand for Year 7 places is expected to continue through to 2024 and beyond. The level of this growth needs to be taken into account in forming proposals to meet demand growth up to 2019, and in conjunction with demand in Rochdale Township, since it is clear that significant further places will be needed for the period 2020-2024.
2013/14 2013/14 2014/15 2019/20 2015/16 2015/16 2016/17 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 2023/24 2024/25 2011/12 2012/13 2017/18 2018/19 Year 6 Pupils 1278 1276 1262 1298 1358 1386 1400 1480 1496 1504 1473 1407 1437 1463 Year 7 Expected Pupils 1091 1021 980 1065 1114 1137 1149 1214 1228 1234 1170 1119 1141 1162 Year 7 Places 1230 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200 Extra Places Needed enough places overall -14 -28 -34 30 81 59 38
Summary and Proposals to meet the additional demand in Rochdale Township 39. The proposal for consultation is to provide an additional 60 places to meet the Rochdale Township demand for the period 2018 and 2019. Also consideration needs to be given to a further extra 60 places for 2018 and 2019 to meet further demand across both Pennines and Rochdale Townships. The four Rochdale Township schools to be considered to take additional children are Falinge Park, Kingsway Park, Matthew Moss and St.Cuthbert’s. Two forms of entry are needed for the period 2018 and 2019 to meet the township need.
Page 91 40. The outline proposal as it affects each Rochdale Township secondary school is as follows: St Cuthbert’s RC (V oluntary Aided ) Admit 30 children in Year 7 in each from September 2018/19 Net Capacity: 1200 The extent of additional accommodation required will need to take Published Admission account of overall number on roll in the school at the time of the Number: 240 required additional places. If the provision of additional teaching space is required, a feasibility study will be needed. Views are needed on whether this accommodation should be considered as Current NOR- 1169 permanent or temporary. As a Voluntary Aided School, the Governing Body is responsible for admissions, and would need to formally agree to taking additional children. Kingsway Park (Foundation) Net Capacity: 1200 Admit 30 children in Year 7 in each from September 2018/19 Published Admission The extent of additional accommodation required will need to take Number: 240 account of overall number on roll in the school at the time of the Current NOR- 946 required additional places. If the provision of additional teaching space is required, a feasibility study will be needed. Views are needed on whether this accommodation should be considered as permanent or temporary. As a Foundation School with a majority Trust, the Trust and the Governing body are responsible for the Buildings and admissions and would need to formally agree to taking additional children. Matthew Moss (Community) Net Capacity: 924 Admit 30 children in Year 7 in each from September 2018/19 Published Admission The extent of additional accommodation required will need to take Number: 180 account of overall number on roll in the school at the time of the Current NOR- 794 required additional places. If the provision of additional teaching space is required, a feasibility study will be needed. Views are needed on whether this accommodation should be considered as permanent or temporary. Falinge Park (Community) Net Capacity: 1200 Admit 30 children in Year 7 in each from September 2018/19 Published Admission This will require the provision of additional teaching space, for Number: 240 which a feasibility study will be needed. Views are needed on Current NOR- 1141 whether this accommodation should be considered as permanent or temporary.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
41. Capital funding for 11-16 additional school places will be through the Education Funding Agency’s (EFA) formulaic capital allocation for Basic Need. This will include provision at academy schools. Should a school consider future additional sixth form places, capital support for additional post 16 places would be directly through the EFA’s “Demographic Growth Capital Fund” which provides support for maintained schools, academies and sixth form colleges. It includes provision for 11-25 year olds with special needs. The formulaic allocation for Basic Need for all local authorities was already been announced and covers the financial years 2015/6 to 2017/8.
42. Revenue funding for additional places would be via formula funding through Dedicated Schools Grant.
Page 92 LEGAL IMPLICATIONS
43. The Local Authority has a duty to secure sufficient school places and is also the strategic commissioner for new school places in its area. If new schools are proposed, current legislation sets out the arrangements for the procurement of such establishments. The Local Authority will have a responsibility to provide additional school sites as required
RISK ASSESSMENT IMPLICATIONS
44. There are a number of risks to be considered in developing a strategy for additional secondary school places: - Independent promoters bringing forward proposals for new school places which are not consistent with addressing the strategic need for additional places or the achievement of the objectives of the BSF Strategy for Change; - The availability, timing and level of significant capital funding from the Education Funding Agency to support 11-16 basic need may not be sufficient to meet the aspirations of providers; - Whether schools and/or post 16 providers wish to collaborate in bringing forward proposals; - The longer term (post 2019) scale of additional demand for places in Middleton and Rochdale/ Pennines;
EQUALITIES IMPACTS
45. The Equality Impact Assessment (EIA) is attached as Appendix Seven The main points arising from the EIA are: * The additional secondary school places will improve parental preference in the Borough as well as ensuring that the Authority can meet its duty to provide enough school places. * Cabinet will be recommended to consider the report of the Working Group and the strategy to meet the increase in demand.
CONSULTATION
46. The proposals for consultation for meeting the additional demand for secondary places for the period 2015 to 2019 across the Borough are summarised below. The proformas attached as Appendix Eight may be used for any response to be submitted. Responses can also be submitted on line
47. The Working Group is interested in your views on the proposals below, and in particular:
• Are enough places being proposed or too many? • Are the places in the right locality to meet need? • Would you suggest other proposals to meet the expected increase in numbers?
Summary of Proposals for Consultation Heywood Township: 48. The proposal is that up to an extra 30 Year 7 places (One Form of Entry) are considered in the township, from 2017 onwards, to be provided at either Holy Family or Siddal Moor.
Page 93 Summary of Proposals for Consultation Middleton Township: 49. The proposal is that an extra 60 Year 7 places (two forms of entry) are provided in the township. Up to 30 extra places to be provided each year at St Annes Academy from September 2017/18. Up to 30 extra year 7 places to be provided each year at Cardinal Langley RC high school from September 2016/17.
Summary of Proposals for Consultation Pennines Township; 50. The proposal is that an extra 60 Year 7 places (two forms of entry) are provided in the township, 30 places at each of Wardle Academy and Hollingworth Academy for the period to 2017 and beyond, and that for further extra places for 2018 and 2019 consideration is given to the scope for additional capacity either in the township secondary schools or the scope for additional places in Rochdale Township.
Summary of Proposals for Consultation Rochdale Township: 51. The proposal for consultation is to provide an additional 60 places to meet the Rochdale Township demand for the period 2018 and 2019. Also consideration needs to be given to further extra 60 places for 2018 and 2019 to meet further demand across both Pennines and Rochdale Townships. The four Rochdale Township schools to be considered to take additional children are Falinge Park, Kingsway Park, Matthew Moss and St. Cuthbert’s. Oulder Hill Community School and Language College already has an admission number of 300 and it is not proposed to enlarge the school further under these proposals.
Making Comments on the Proposals: 52. The above proposals are for public consultation, and any interested party may submit written comments, using the attached proforma, or directly on the Council website at: http://consultations.rochdale.gov.uk/ , or in writing or by e-mail to
Yasin Khan, Rochdale Borough Council, Early Help and Schools, School Organisation and Development Team, Floor 4, Number One Riverside, Smith Street, ROCHDALE, OL16 1XU e-mail- [email protected]
53. The closing date for comments is midnight on Sunday 20 th July 2014.
Chris Swift School Organisation & Development Manager On behalf of the Secondary Places Working Group 2nd June 2014
…………………………………………………………………………………………….
Page 94
LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX ONE
MAP OF SECONDARY SCHOOLS IN THE BOROUGH BY TOWNSHIP
APPENDIX TWO
HOW MANY CHILDREN IN OUR SECONDARY SCHOOLS AT PRESENT JAN 2014 CENSUS
APPENDIX THREE
CURRENT PHYSICAL AND ADMISSION CAPACITIES OF SCHOOLS DIVERSITY OF PROVISION
APPENDIX FOUR
A: How the pupil projections are developed B: School Capacity Data and Accommodation C: Housing Developments
APPENDIX FIVE
STANDARDS IN SCHOOLS
APPENDIX SIX
SCHOOL PLACE DEMAND- ADMISSION PREFERENCES & APPEALS
APPENDIX SEVEN
EQUALITIES IMPACT ASSESSMENT
APPENDIX EIGHT
CONSULTATION RESPONSE PROFORMAS
Page 95
APPENDIX ONE Map of secondary schools in the Borough by Township
Page 96 APPENDIX TWO How many children in our secondary schools at January 2014 census
Page 97 APPENDIX THREE PHYSICAL CAPACITY, ADMISSION PLACES & CATEGORY of SCHOOL
SCHOOL Category Net Admission Capacity Number Heywood Township Holy Family RC/CE College VA RC/CE 600 120 Siddal Moor Sports College Community 1050 210 Middleton Township Middleton Technology High School Community 1350 270 Cardinal Langley RC High School RC VA 900 180 St Anne’s Academy (30 places /year group Academy 750 150 CE) Pennines Township Wardle Academy Academy 1200 240 Hollingworth Academy Academy 1200 240 Rochdale Township St Cuthbert’s RC Business and Enterprise RC VA 1200 240 College Kingsway Park High School Foundation 1200 240 Mathew Moss High School Community 924 180 Oulder Hill School & Language College Community 1500 300 Falinge Park High School & Performing Arts Community 1200 240 College 13,074 2,610 BOROUGH SUMMARY - DIVERSITY OF PROVISION Admission % of Places Places Community 1200 46% Voluntary Aided Roman Catholic (RC) 495 19% Voluntary Aided C hurch of England (CE) 45 2% Academy CE 30 1% Academy 600 23% Foundation 210 9% Total 2,610 100%
Page 98 APPENDIX FOUR A: How the pupil projections are developed B: School Capacity Data and Accommodation C: Housing Developments
A: How Pupil Projections are Developed Sources of Data: 1. Birth data is obtained from the Office for National Statistics (ONS), on an academic year basis by postcode. This is a full year in arrears. For the immediate past academic year (for which ONS data is not available) birth data is obtained at Ward level from the health authority. When available the ONS data is used to replace the Health Authority ward level figures. Actual pupil numbers from the May School Census are used. Actual pupil numbers include the 2 Academies, and are obtained directly from the schools.
Use of Raw Data to produce Projections: 2. For Primary schools pupil number projections are produced at Borough level and for each of the Four Townships. At Secondary level projections are produced at Borough level only. The spreadsheet used calculates a progression ratio for every year group. It first calculates the % of pupil born in the appropriate year that were then in the Reception classes after their 4th birthday. The model then tracks each cohort as it progresses through the school system to calculate what % is retained from one year to the next. The pupil projections submitted to DfE are at Borough level.
3. A weighted average is then calculated as the basis for projections of future numbers. The model uses births and number on roll data from 2007/8. The most recent years are given a higher weighting given that we expect them to more accurately reflect current trends and, therefore, the likely trend over the next few years.
4. The weighted average for each Year Group is then applied to the most recent actual pupil numbers to give a projection for the next school year, and the weightings are then applied to projected figures to calculate subsequent years’ numbers. This applies to all year groups including Y12 and Y13. It should be noted that 3 school Sixth Forms close completely in August 2012, and there is likely to a further sixth form closures in 2013, so projected Sixth Form numbers are subject to a wider margin of error.
Additional Factors allowed for: 5. The final stage in developing the projections includes an element for new housing developments. Only those sites with planning permission with houses under construction are included. The basis of calculation is an average standard pupil yield of 0.1 secondary age children and 0.25 primary age children per new house built. So for every 100 houses there would be an extra 10 secondary age children and 25 primary age children, which are then split evenly across each school year group (except Sixth Form). The assumption is that the development is completed equally over 2 years. For the Borough as a whole this works out at a modest 21 children per primary year group and 12 children per year group of secondary age. The net effect of migration is taken account of through the progression ratios which include an allowance of 3% for flexibility.
B: SCHOOL CAPACITY DATA and ACCOMODATION 6. An analysis of the accommodation available at each school has been undertaken. Based on this there is a standard Department for Education (DfE) method for calculating how many children a school can take (the Net Capacity Assessment) and how many children should be in each year group (the Indicated Admission Number).
Page 99 The Published Admission Number should not be less than the Indicated Admission Number. For school place planning purposes the emphasis is on the Planned Admission Number (PAN), because that is the minimum number of children that must be admitted.
C: HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS 7. The draft Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment for 2013 identifies the number of housing sites with planning permission and under construction, as well as other sites with planning permission and also potential housing sites. The Table below summarises these new housing developments for the Borough, by township over the next 15 years.
8. For the purposes of developing pupil projections, however, only new houses on sites that are under construction can be included in the calculations (excluding houses completed). In common with most northern local authorities an overall average of 3 pupils per year group for each 100 houses (pupil yield) is used. This means that for every new 100 houses there will be a need for an extra 21 primary age pupils (and 15 secondary age pupils).
9. The following table sets out the total additional place demand by township based on April 2013 sites under construction: Township Total number of Houses Houses Potential Houses on sites Completed still to be Pupil Yield under construction built Heywood 666 278 388 12 additional pupils per year group= 84 extra primary age children and 60 extra secondary age children Middleton 637 185 452 15 additional pupils per year group= 105 extra primary age children and 75 extra secondary age children Pennines 490 53 437 12 additional pupils per year group= 84 extra primary age children and 60 extra secondary age children Rochdale 635 58 577 18 additional pupils per year group= 126 extra primary age children and 90 extra secondary age children Borough 2428 574 1854 57additional pupils per year Total group= 399 extra primary age children and 285 extra secondary age children
Township Potential additional Houses on sites with Planning Permission in next 10 years Heywood 69 Middleton 371 Pennines 265 Rochdale 1277 Borough Total 1982 Source: RMBC Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment 2013
Page 100 APPENDIX FIVE
STANDARDS IN SCHOOLS
School Current Overall A* - C in A* - C A* - C Closing the Gap % OfSTED KS 4 English in in disadvantaged Grade 5 A*-C Maths Science achieving expected Inc E+M outcomes 2013 English Maths
Siddal Moor Satisfactory 54% 62% 65% 58% 45% 56% (2012) Holy Family RC/ Good 50% 57% 65% 88% 36% 48% CE (2013) Middleton Outstanding 68% 77% 74% 93% 75% 62% Technology (2006) Cardinal Good 66% 73% 73% 86% 48% 56% Langley (2012) St. Anne’s Good 46% 57% 60% 83% 64% 59% Academy (2013) Hollingworth Outstanding 67% 69% 82% Not 55% 73% Academy (2008) Available Wardle Good 66% 72% 74% Not 71% 73% Academy (2011) Available Falinge Park Good 57% 68% 70% 46% 73% 63% (2013) Kingsway Park Good 51% 61% 57% 72% 68% 59% (2013) Matthew Moss Requires 52% 63% 62% 56% 54% 55% Improvement (2013) St. Cuthbert’s Requires 55% 70% 64% 72% 52% 50% RC Improvement (2013) Oulder Hill Good 48% 49% 77% 77% 40% 70% (2012)
Page 101 APPENDIX SIX SCHOOL PLACE DEMAND ADMISSION PREFERENCES, APPEALS
SECONDARY SCHOOL PREFERENCES and APPEALS DfE 2011 -12 on time 1st Places 1st Prefs % Sep-11 Appeals No. PAN prefs Prefs Offered offered 1st Prefs places No. No. Total expressed 1stMar11 Offered offered Appeals Upheld 4083 Siddal Moor 210 343 189 193 189 100% 202 3 1 4801 Holy Family RC & CE 120 250 113 120 113 100% 118 2 0 4091 Middleton Tech 210 369 163 181 163 100% 187 5 3 4611 Cardinal Langley RC(A) 180 415 194 180 176 91% 189 5 0 6905 St. Anne's Academy CE 150 190 70 71 70 100% 86 0 0 5401 Hollingworth (F) 240 629 291 241 235 81% 244 30 9 5400 Wardle (F) 240 415 183 215 183 100% 216 2 0 4612 St.Cuthbert's RC(A) 240 426 259 270 259 100% 268 10 4 5402 Kingsway Park 240 464 164 173 164 100% 185 4 2 4088 Matthew Moss 180 428 168 172 168 100% 170 3 1 4089 Oulder Hill 300 648 209 245 209 100% 250 2 0 4086 Falinge Park 240 474 213 226 213 100% 223 0 0 2550 5051 2216 2287 2142 96.60% 2338 66 20
on 1st DfE time 1st Places Prefs % Sep-12 Appeals No. 2012-13 PAN prefs Prefs Offered offered 1st Prefs Places No. No. Total expressed 1stMar12 Offered offered Appeals Upheld 4083 Siddal Moor 210 299 186 193 186 100% 191 0 0 4801 Holy Family RC & CE 120 237 123 120 120 97.60% 122 0 0 4091 Middleton Tech 210 340 180 189 180 100% 197 0 0 4611 Cardinal Langley RC(A) 180 310 148 156 148 100% 165 0 0 6905 St. Anne's Academy CE 150 200 98 100 98 100% 111 0 0 5401 Hollin gworth (F) 230 585 310 240 238 76.80% 241 23 5 5400 Wardle (F) 240 376 167 216 167 100% 211 0 0 4612 St.Cuthbert's RC(A) 270 383 209 230 209 100% 226 0 0 5402 Kingsway Park 240 365 147 155 147 100% 161 0 0 4088 Matthew Moss 180 349 142 145 142 100% 155 0 0 4089 Oulder Hill 300 555 237 269 237 100% 247 0 0 4086 Falinge Park 240 424 203 215 203 100% 222 0 0 2570 4423 2150 2228 2075 96.50% 2249 23 5
Page 102
1st DfE on time 1st % Prefs Places Sep-13 Appeals
No. 2013-14 PAN prefs Prefs 1st Prefs offered Offered places No. No. Total Offered 1stMar13 offered Appeals Upheld 4083 Siddal Moor 210 234 143 100 143 147 158 0 0 4801 Holy Family RC & CE 120 203 113 100 113 120 121 0 0 4091 Middleton Tech 210 301 183 100 183 204 210 3 3 4611 Cardinal Langley RC(A) 180 362 210 82.9 174 180 194 12 6 6905 St. Anne's Academy CE 150 190 86 100 86 98 114 0 0 5401 Hollingworth (F) 240 515 284 82.4 234 240 249 20 3 5400 Wardle (F) 240 358 206 100 206 236 254 0 0 4612 St.Cuthbert's RC(A) 240 284 147 100 147 161 176 0 0 5402 Kingsway Park 240 390 188 100 188 198 214 0 0 4088 Matthew Moss 180 293 121 100 121 130 141 0 0 4089 Oulder Hill 300 519 220 100 220 266 271 0 0 4086 Falinge Park 240 323 179 100 179 182 218 0 0
2550 3972 2080 95.87 1994 2162 2320 35 12
1st DfE on time 1st % Prefs Places May-14 Appeals
No. 2014-15 PAN prefs Prefs 1st Prefs offered Offered places No. No. Total Offered 1stMar14 offered Appeals Upheld 4083 Siddal Moor 210 245 142 100 142 145 153 4801 Holy Family RC & CE 120 201 116 100 116 118 119 4091 Middleton Tech 270 314 194 100 194 205 214 4611 Cardinal Langley RC(A) 180 333 178 98.3 175 180 180 6905 St. Anne's Academy CE 150 201 101 100 101 101 110 5401 Hollingworth (F) 240 593 303 83.8 254 260 259 5400 Wardle (F) 240 405 240 90.4 217 240 268 4612 St.Cuthbert's RC(A) 240 271 157 100 157 166 181 5402 Kingsway Park 240 382 176 100 176 185 206 Not Available Yet Information Not Available Yet Information 4088 Matthew Moss 180 310 147 100 147 151 164 4089 Oulder Hill 300 532 243 100 243 266 272 4086 Falinge Park 240 408 217 99.5 216 240 240
2610 4195 2214 96.57 2138 2257 2366 0 0
Page 103 APPENDIX SEVEN Equalities Impact Assessment
What are you assessing? Please tick the appropriate box below. Function Strategy Policy Project Other, please specify below X
Service: Section: Early Help & Schools School Organisation and Development Responsible Officer: Name of function/strategy/ policy/ p roject assessed: Chris Swift Providing Additional Secondary places in the Rochdale Borough from September 2015 onwards
Date of Assessment: 8 April 2014 Officers Involved: Chris Swift & Yasin Khan 1. What is the purpose of the function/strategy/policy/project asses sed? (Briefly describe the aims, objectives and purpose of the function/strategy/policy/project) There is a need to consider providing additional secondary places in the Rochdale Townships from September 2015 onwards. This is because the number of year 7 students for admission to secondary schools, across the borough will begin to increase significantly over the next few years. The effect of this means that in additional to the current number of secondary school admissions places and beyond. For this reason a stakeholder working group was set up to consider these issues and to formulate proposals for consultation. The view of the Working Group is that this additional need will be best met by expansion on the current school sites. The key aims and objectives are to secure sufficient school places, which respond to the views of parents in terms of type and diversity of provision and offer fair access for all children. Due to the rise in demand, it will be necessary to provide additional secondary school places from September 2015 onwards.
2. Who are the key stakeholders? The key stakeholders are: • Parents and pupils living in key areas of Rochdale, where they have experienced a notable rise in demand for secondary school places. • Carers and children in the Borough, and Governing Bodies of all Community, Voluntary controlled schools as well as Academies and foundation schools from the Borough 3. What is the scope of this equality impact assessment? That is, what is included in this assessment. The scope of this equality impact assessment sets out the details of the need for additional secondary school places in the period2015-2019. Based on current projections additional year 7 places will be needed in each Township in that period. The Local Authority has a statutory duty to secure sufficient school places in this area, and is the strategic commissioner for the provision of additional places that might be required.
4. Which needs is this function/strategy/ policy/ project designed to meet? Ensure that there are enough school places in the Rochdale Township to meet the increased demand. From September 2014 the number of year 7 students for admission to secondary schools will begin to increase across the Borough. The pattern and extent of growth in demand is not evenly distributed, and the trend of year 6 children leaving for out-of- borough school continues. By 2020 there are expected to be 2934 year 6 children and of these, on current patterns of preference, 2828 will attend Rochdale Borough secondary schools. This is an overall shortfall of 216 places. The September 2014 published admission number (PAN) IS 2610 places.
Page 104 5. Has a needs analysis been undertaken? Yes. The Local Authority has a duty to ensure that there are sufficient school places. Each year an analysis is undertaken of the supply and demand for school places. The analysis and proposed ways of meeting the need for extra places across the Rochdale Borough is then the subject of consultation. The need for additional secondary school places is the subject of this EIA, and the detailed analysis of need is the substance of the Consultation Document which can be accessed through the following link: http://consultations.rochdale.gov.uk/
6. Who is affected by this function/strategy/ policy/ project? Parents, Carers, pupils & Schools are the main groups affected by an increase in provision. These additional groups include: staff at the school, Diocesan and church Authorities, Secretaries of recognised Trades Unions, elected members and the local MPs.
7.Who has been involved in the review or development of this function/strategy/ policy/ project and who has been consulted? State your consultation/involvement methodology.
In order to plan effectively to meet the expected increase in demand, in December 2013 Rochdale Local Authority set up a Stakeholder Group comprising representatives of Secondary Headteachers, College Principals, Elected Members, school governors, Primary Headteachers and Diocesan Authorities to look at the supply and demand for additional secondary school places.
The remit of the Group, therefore, was to look at the strategy for meeting the need for extra pupil places across the Borough over the next five years (2015 onwards), to consult on such revised proposals and report to the Executive Member Children Schools & Families on the outcomes of that consultation by Autumn 2014. The membership of the Group comprises:
• Cllr Martin, plus 3 elected Members nominated by the respective Group Leaders; • Assistant Director Early Help and Schools; • 4 Secondary Headteachers nominated through the Pioneer Trust; • 1 person nominated by the Manchester Diocese; • 1 person nominated by the Salford Diocese; • 1 Primary Headteacher nominated by RAPH; • Principal Hopwood Hall College; • Principal Rochdale Sixth Form College • 1 School Governor nominated through the Governor Forum
The purpose of this consultation paper is to present for public consultation proposals from the Working Group as to how many additional places ought to be provided, and where and when they should be provided. The consultation will involve parents, carers, pupils, staff and governors of schools, Head teachers and Governing Bodies of schools in the Borough, Secretaries of Recognised Trades Unions, Salford and Manchester Diocesan Authorities, the Methodist Church, Elected members, MPs for the Rochdale Borough. Consultation will be undertaken for 6 weeks in June and July 2014.
8. What data have you considered for this assessment and have any gaps in the data been identified. What action will be taken to close any data gaps?
Analysis of: • Pupil projection data • Pattern of past admissions to schools and parental preferences • Availability of places • Birth data • Net inward pupil movement into and around the Borough • New housing developments
Page 105 9. Are here any other documents or strategies which are linked to this assessment? If so, please include hyperlinks to these documents below, where available. • School Organisation Plan 2010-14 for Rochdale Borough which can be accessed at: http://www.rochdale.gov.uk/PDF/2011-03-23_School_Organisation_Plan_2010-14_v1.pdf
10. What impact will this function/s trategy/policy/project have on all the protected groups? This includes both positive and potentially negative impacts. Race Equality The proposed changes do not have an adverse impact on race equality considerations. The increase in school places will extend the opportunity for parental preference. Disabled People Any additional accommodation will be compliant with meeting the needs of disabled children and adults. The access needs of disabled parents/carers who take children to school and the access needs of any disabled residents who live near the school will be addressed by a revised School Travel Plan. Carers The proposed changes do not have an adverse impact on carers. The increase in school places and will improve accessibility to local schools. Gender The proposed changes do not have an adverse impact based on gender considerations. Age The proposed changes do not have an adverse impact based on age considerations. Armed Forces and Ex -Armed Forces Personnel The proposed changes do not have an adverse impact based on armed forces and ex service personnel considerations. The increase in school places and will improve accessibility to local schools. Sexual Orientation The proposed changes do not have an adverse impact on sexual orientation considerations. Gender Reassignment The proposed changes do not have an adverse impact on gender reassignment considerations. Religion or Belief The proposed changes do not have an adverse impact on religion or belief considerations. Consultation includes faith schools and their administrative bodies and proposals will reflect future demand for Roman Catholic and Church of England places. Pregnant Women or Those on Maternity Leave The proposed changes do not have an adverse impact on pregnant women or those on maternity leave. Marriage or Civil Partnership The proposed changes do not have an adverse impact on marriage or civil partnership considerations. 11. What are your main conclusions from this analysis? -There is a need for additional secondary pupil places due to the increase in demographic demand across the Borough for the period September 2015 and beyond. Decisions on where to put additional places will be made in the light of the consultation responses.
-Residents living in the areas where the additional school places are allocated may also be affected since the additional places may: require the enlargement of the school accommodation, lead to an increase in the traffic on the roads, and lead to an increase in the number of people parking in the vicinity if they are dropping or collecting pupils. Through the separate feasibility studies being undertaken, the views of Planning and Highways Services will be taken into account
-The consultation papers and letters were only provided in English, Any further or school specific consultations will need to recognise that some residents and new arrivals to the Borough may not speak English fluently.
Page 106 12.What are your recommendations? The additional secondary school places will improve parental preference in the Borough as well as ensuring that the Authority can meet its duty to provide enough school places. Cabinet will be recommended to consider the report of the Working Group and the strategy to meet the increase in demand. 13.What actions are you going to take to address the findings of this assessment? Please attach an action plan including details of designated officers responsible for completing these actions. As the proposals do not have an adverse impact on the protected groups, there are no targets. The Action Plan, however, sets out the process for implementing the strategy if approved. Signed (Completing Officer):______Chris Swift_____ Date: _2nd June 2014
Signed (Head of Service): ______Date: ______
Equality Impact Assessment Action Plan 2014/15 Action Outcome Target Date Resource Lead For Implications Officer Completion
Undertake Working Group 8th September Officer time C Swift public considers 2014 Y Khan consultation consultation responses
Report to Decision on where Oct 2014 Officer time C Swift Cabinet extra school Y Khan places to be provided
Feasibility Informed August 2014 Officer time and C Swift Studies decisions on commissioning Y Khan where extra feasibility studies places to be provided
Report to Implementing the Oct 2014 Officer time C Swift Cabinet Cabinet decision Y Khan
Further Formal proposals Nov 2014 Officer time C Swift dialogue with agreed at school Capital Y Khan Individual level resources school heads identified to Governing support Bodies / Trusts Implementation
Page 107 APPENDIX EIGHT CONSULTATION RESPONSE PROFORMAS:
Heywood Township- Extra Secondary School Places- CONSULTATION REPLY Are enough extra places being planned for Heywood? Please tick YES
NO If up to 30 extra places are to be provided at one of the Heywood Schools - at which Holy Family school would you prefer to see these places provided? Siddal Moor COMMENTS or alternative suggestions to provide extra Year 7 pla ces :
NAME/contact email -
Middleton Township- Extra Secondary School Places- CONSULTATION REPLY Are enough extra places being planned for Middleton? Please tick YES NO If up to 6 0 extra places are to be provided at two of the Cardinal Langley RC School YES NO Middleton Schools- do you support 30 extra places at each of these schools? St Anne’s Academy YES NO COMMENTS or alternative suggestions to provide extra Year 7 places :
NAME/contact email -
Pennines Township- Extra Secondary School Places- CONSULTATION REPLY Are enough extra places being planned for Pennines? Please tick YES NO If up to 60 ext ra places are to be provided at two of Hollingworth Academy YES NO the Pennines Schools- do you support 30 extra places at each of these schools? Wardle Academy YES NO COMMENTS or alternative suggestions to provide extra Year 7 places:
NAME/c ontact email -
Rochdale Township- Extra Secondary School Places- CONSULTATION REPLY Are enough extra places being planned for Rochdale? Please tick YES NO If up to 60 extra places are to Falinge Park YES NO Mathew Moss YES NO be provided at four of the Rochdale Schools- at which Kingsway YES NO St Cuthberts YES NO Schools would you like to see Park the additional places COMMENTS or alternative suggestions to provide extra Year 7 places:
NAME/contact email - …………………………………………………………………ENDS…………………………………………………………
Page 108 Agenda Item 11 By virtue of paragraph(s) 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.
Document is Restricted
Page 109 By virtue of paragraph(s) 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.
Document is Restricted
Page 118 By virtue of paragraph(s) 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.
Document is Restricted
Page 121 By virtue of paragraph(s) 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.
Document is Restricted
Page 128 By virtue of paragraph(s) 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.
Document is Restricted
Page 130 By virtue of paragraph(s) 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.
Document is Restricted
Page 134 By virtue of paragraph(s) 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.
Document is Restricted
Page 144 Agenda Item 12 By virtue of paragraph(s) 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.
Document is Restricted
Page 149 By virtue of paragraph(s) 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.
Document is Restricted
Page 153 By virtue of paragraph(s) 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.
Document is Restricted
Page 162