Public Document Pack

LEGAL & DEMOCRATIC SERVICES

Linda Fisher Service Director

COMMITTEE SERVICES SECTION PO Box 15, Town Hall, Rochdale OL16 1AB

Telephone: Rochdale (01706) 647474 Fax: Rochdale (01706) 924705 www.rochdale.gov.uk

To: All Members of Middleton Your Ref: Township Committee Our Ref: Enquiries to: Alison Leonard Extension: 4711 Date: 25 th August 2011

Dear Councillor

MIDDLETON TOWNSHIP COMMITTEE

You are requested to attend the meeting of Middleton Township Committee to be held in Middleton Arena on Thursday 8th September 2011 commencing at 6.15 pm.

The Agenda meeting will be held at 6.15pm on Tuesday 6 th September 2011 at the Middleton Community Training Centre, Long Street, Middleton.

The agenda and supporting papers are attached.

If you require advice on any agenda item involving a possible Declaration of Interest which could affect your right to speak and/or vote, please contact staff in the Committee Services Section at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting.

Yours faithfully

Linda Fisher Service Director

Middleton Township Committee Membership 2011/12

Councillor Malcolm Boriss Councillor Philip Burke Councillor Jonathan Paul Burns Councillor Neil Patrick Emmott Councillor Susan Emmott Councillor Mary Teresa Fitzsimons Councillor Alan James Godson Councillor Michael Charles Holly Councillor Donna Elizabeth Martin Councillor Lily Carter Murphy Councillor Linda Robinson Councillor Maureen Rowbotham Councillor Carol Elizabeth Wardle Councillor June West Councillor Peter James Williams

1

2

ROCHDALE METROPOLITAN BOROUGH COUNCIL

MIDDLETON TOWNSHIP COMMITTEE

Thursday, 8 September 2011 at 6.15 pm

Middleton Arena, Corporation Street, Middleton

A G E N D A

Apologies for Absence

1. Declarations of Interests Members are requested to indicate at this stage, any items on the agenda in which they intend to declare an interest. Members are reminded that, in accordance with the Local Government Act 2000 and the Council’s Code of Conduct, they must declare the nature of any personal or prejudicial interest and, if the interest is prejudicial, withdraw from the meeting during consideration of the item. 2. Minutes To approve the minutes of the meeting of the Middleton Township Committee held on 7 th July 2011. 3. Middleton Township Planning Sub-Committee To approve the minutes of the meetings of the Middleton Township Planning Sub- Committee held on 29 th June 2011 and 27 th July 2011.

ITEM FOR DECISION – NON-EXECUTIVE 4. Nomination of Members to the Edgar Wood & Middleton Heritage Initiative Board

ITEMS FOR DECISION - EXECUTIVE 5. Oldham Road, Middleton - Objections to Proposed Traffic Regulation Order 6. Proposed Time Limited Parking Restrictions – Mainway/Kirkway Shopping Precinct, Middleton 7. Disposal of Surplus Assets 8. Angling Lease (Rhodes Lodges)

ITEMS FOR CONSULTATION 9. Review of Polling Districts and Polling Places 10. Draft Green Infrastructure Action Plan 11. Draft Community Cohesion Strategy 12. Safer Communities Plan 2011-14

ITEMS FOR INFORMATION 13. Street Lighting PFI Replacement Programme 14. Financial Regulations Report – Housing Market Renewal Programme, 2011-12

3 This page is intentionally left blank Public Document Pack Agenda Item 2

MIDDLETON TOWNSHIP COMMITTEE

MINUTES OF MEETING Thursday, 7 July 2011

PRESENT: Councillor Neil Emmott (in the Chair); Councillors Boriss, Burke, Burns, Emmott, Fitzsimons, Holly, Martin, Lil Murphy, Robinson, Rowbotham, Wardle, West and Williams

OFFICERS: M Widdup (Service Director – Operational Services), D Choularton and L Mason (Performance and Transformation Service), P Simpson (Planning and Regulation Service), E Holliday and S Bloomer (Regeneration and Housing Service), J Taylor (Learners and Young People’s Service), A Catt (Property Services), T Hibbert (Environmental Management Service) and M Hardman (Legal and Democratic Services).

Also in Attendance: S Reay (Highways Directorate), J Taylor (Link4Life)

Apologies for Absence: None.

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST 22 There were no declarations of interest.

OPEN FORUM 23 The following issues were raised in the Open Forum Session:-

(a) CCTV Mr Linden, in referring to a commitment within the Township Plan to ensure that CCTV was functional and monitored, drew attention to a particular camera that had been inoperable for sometime. Mr Holliday advised that major failings with the installation of the camera had recently been identified and that significant works may be required to rectify the situation. Members asked that legal recourse into this issue be investigated.

DECIDED – That the Services Director – Legal and Democratic pursue the contractor responsible for the installation of the CCTV camera; the Township Manager liaise with the Community Safety Officer to seek to remedy the camera provision.

(b) Jumbo Social Centre and Tenants’ Ballot Mrs P Radcliffe queried whether the Township wanted the Jumbo Social Centre to close, advising of difficulties in gaining assistance for development work for the Centre. In connection with funding, she queried the money being spent on matters relating to the tenants’ ballot.

Members advised that decisions on the Jumbo Social Centre would be made by the Township and there was no wish to see the centre closed. It was hoped to be able to commence more proactive work with Officers in the near future. With regard to money being spent on the tenants’ ballot, Members advised that there was a due legal process to be undertaken and that full consultation on all related matters needed to be undertaken.

Page 1 (c) Wheelie Bins Mrs J Bunner advised the Township Committee of problems arising from black bin liners left out alongside wheelie bins not being collected on refuse collections rounds. The Service Director undertook to consider the issue in the area identified and to progress through discussion/consultations with residents as to the best usage of bins and, in the event of consistent abuse of the system, consider enforcement action that was available.

(d) Street Cleansing Mrs J Bunner advised that the area outside the gardens on Edward Street/St Steven’s Square should be cleaned on a regular basis and indicated that this was not happening. The Service Director advised that, should this be a recurrent problem as suggested, staff would be briefed.

(e) Speeding on Bowness Road Mr D Taylor had submitted a question relating to problems of vehicles speeding on Bowness Road and suggesting that traffic calming measures were required. The Director of Highways was to respond to the question in writing.

(f) Residents Parking Scheme – Durnford, Rectory, Mellalieu, Lever and Grace Streets Mr L Wolfe had submitted a question querying when the residents’ parking scheme would be put in place for Durnford, Rectory, Mellalieu, Lever and Grace Streets. The Director of Highways was to reply in writing on this issue, and to advise the Middleton West Ward Members accordingly.

(g) Edgar Wood Birch Monument Mr G Louden had submitted a question regarding the current position with the Edgar Wood Birch monument. The Service Director for Planning and Regulation was to respond to this question in writing.

(h) Former King’s Arms, High Wood Street Mr J Faye referred to the former King’s Arms on High Wood Street which had been vacant for some time and been subject to vandalism, and advised that flytipping was occurring in the adjacent area. The Service Director for Planning and Regulation confirmed that there were powers available to the Council to look to address issues as reported and that arrangements would be made for a Building Inspector to visit the site; advice would also be sought on legal routes forward. Further to a suggestion that the owner was intending demolition, Members asked that information be sought as to the likely timescales.

COMMUNITY TRANSPORT INITIATIVES 24 The Township Committee received a presentation from Mr B Mackleston from the Greater Manchester Integrated Transport Authority who attended the Committee to advise on the various options provided for community transport.

The Committee was advised that the Rochdale Borough had an extensive list of Local Link services (different to Ring and Ride services) which provided public transport in areas where other services were limited. Anyone living in the local areas covered could use the service and there were no age or disability restrictions. A specific Shopping Link service had also been developed on a Borough-wide basis. Community Transport provided transport facilities for both local community groups and for individual journeys, and worked with other agencies to develop such services,

Page 2 for example working with health agencies to provide sustainable travel to particular health provision centres. Other activities falling within the remit of the Initiative included a volunteer driver scheme to provide affordable transport for older people and the Community Ambassador Scheme run jointly with Northern Rail to encourage people to use rail services.

In response to queries from Members, Mr Mackleston advised that coverage in particular areas might be limited as a result of a commercial operator registering a complaint against Local Link services being provided in a particular area. It was confirmed that the services in Middleton were reasonably well-used but it needed to be stressed that such services were for all as there was a perception that they were only for people with disabilities or for the elderly. In response to a further query, Mr Maccleston advised that grants of up to £150 were available for groups of people to travel, so long as journeys went not beyond 10 miles from the Greater Manchester boundary.

The Committee thanked Mr Mackleston for his presentation.

MINUTES 25 The minutes of the meeting of the Middleton Township Committee held on 26 May 2011 were considered.

With regard to the proceedings of the Open Forum, the Township Manager advised that the former Saxonside Elderly Persons’ Home had been sold to a local doctor; that a briefing sent with regard to Lottery Funding would be re-circulated to Members of the Committee; and that Andrew Kaye from the Citizens’ Advice Bureau was now intending to report to the Township Committee in September. With regard to the issue raised regarding Fair Shares Funding, the Service Director for Legal and Democratic Services advised that confirmation had been received that names of those on the grant giving body would not be released by the organisation concerned on grounds of Data Protection. Details had been provided of organisations in receipt of funding in February 2011 and further advice had been received that the final round of funding for Middleton had been considered recently. Members expressed concern at not being able to get further details of the grant giving arrangement.

The Committee was asked to note that, further to Minute 10 to the submitted minutes, Mr T Linden had declined appointment as an Local Authority Governor to St Anne’s Academy following his appointment by the Governing Body as a Community Governor representative. DECIDED – That (1) the minutes of the meeting of the Middleton Township Committee held on 26 May 2011 be approved as a correct record, subject to the deletion of the reference to Langley Estate Strategy Group in the appointments listed under Minute 8 and the substitution of Riverside Estate Committee; (2) the Service Director for Legal and Democratic write to the Lottery Board expressing concern at difficulties receiving further information on the Fair Shares Funding that would enable the Committee to ensure that funds were spent properly and fully within the community.

MIDDLETON CULTURE WORKING PARTY 26 DECIDED – That the notes of the Middleton Culture Working Party held on 2 June 2011 be noted.

Page 3 MIDDLETON ENVIRONMENT FORUM 27 The notes of the meeting of the Middleton Environment Forum held on 6 April 2011 were considered. Further to Minute 3 “Recycling Plant on Grimshaw Lane”, the Service Director for Operational Services undertook to raise issues with the Service Director for Planning and Regulation for there to be an update provided to the next meeting of the Environment Forum. DECIDED – That the noted of the meeting of Middleton Environment Forum on 6 April 2011 be noted.

SCHOOL GOVERNING BODY VACANCIES - LOCAL AUTHORITY GOVERNORS. 28 The Director of Schools Services (MT. /11) sought appointment of a Local Authority representative to the Governing Body of St Anne’s Academy. DECIDED – That confirmation of an appointment be delegated to the Service Director for Legal and Democratic in consultation with the Chair and Vice-Chair of this Committee.

MIDDLETON TOWNSHIP STRUCTURE. 29 The Township Manager (MT. /11) sought approval to reduce the Township structure of Sub-Committees, Fora and Working Groups with effect from 1 July 2011. DECIDED – That (1) the delegation arrangements to the Middleton Township Delegated Sub-Committee and the Middleton Township Planning Sub-Committee, as contained within the Scheme of Delegation to Townships and the Development Control Scheme respectively, be noted; (2) the Middleton Environment Forum take place on a bi-monthly basis immediately after meetings of the Middleton Township Planning Sub-Committee; (3) the Middleton Children and Young People’s Working Party report to the Middleton Township Devolved Funding and Services Committee; Eligible for (4) the Middleton Township Regeneration and Call-in Transport remain as per current arrangements; (5) the Middleton Township Culture, Leisure, Tourism No and Community Cohesion Working Party oversee any health and wellbeing items which need to be considered at the Township level.

MIDDLETON TOWNSHIP PLAN 2012-15. 30 The Township Manager (MT. /11) sought agreement of the Committee to align the timescales for developing and approving the Township Plan 2012/15 to the 2014/15 Vision work and the development of the Corporate Plan.

The recommendations were presented as the Council was currently developing radical strategies and plans for 2014 when Council services would be delivered in the context of a number of challenges, including further budget reductions. This held implications for the content and delivery of Township Plans. While there was a process for annual review of the Township Plan, it was necessary to align the current year’s timetable to enable the Township Plan to be developed as part of the Council’s 2014/15 Visioning work and the Corporate Plan.

Alternatives considered: The Township Plan was an integral part of the Council’s policy framework and could not be developed in isolation from the overall 2014/15 Vision for the Council’s future service delivery. Eligible DECIDED – That (1) the timescale for the development of the Middleton for Call-in Township Plan 2012/15 to be aligned to the 2014/15 Vision work and Yes development of the Corporate Plan, be agreed;

Page 4 (2) the Township Manager work with Officers and sub- groups to look at the Township Plan and report back to this Committee in September.

MIDDLETON TOWNSHIP - HIGHWAY SCHEMES. 31 The Director of Highways (MT. /11) sought consideration of a list of costed projects and for members to indicate to their preference to agree, defer or reject individual schemes.

The recommendation was presented as there was no new Highways Capital Programme Funding available to be devolved to the Townships. Within the Highways Revenue Programme discretionary funding had been apportioned across the Townships, with proportionate levels of funding required supporting £1,033,000 prudential borrowing for delivery of the Borough-wide scheme to introduce 20 mph school zone schemes; interest costs from the Middleton Township were £22,660. A suggested split of funding for activities were proposed, and existing improvement schemes the Township sponsored in previous years and which were now carried forward to the 2011/12 programme were identified and, where any additional funding was required, the Township was asked to either identify and confirm Township funding or to remove the scheme as a current Township objective.

Alternatives considered Alternate schemes had been considered within the process.

The Committee was advised that the Inspector for the Core Strategy would be visiting the Borough at the end of July, and that the junction 19 scheme was part of these discussions. Relevant Ward members indicated a wish to be part of a Group meeting prior to this, and the Director of Highways, in liaison with Township staff, undertook to progress arrangements.

DECIDED – That (1) the decisions of the Cabinet in respect of Highways Funding be noted; (2) the distribution of the Revenue Township Discretionary Funding, from which £22,660 is required for the interest costs of potential borrowing for implementation of the 20 mph schools zones, be confirmed; (3) following confirmation of expenditure to date and consultation with Members, the Director of Highways advise on the progression of schemes for 2011/12. Eligible for Call-in

Yes

Page 5 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 6 Public Document Pack Agenda Item 3

MIDDLETON TOWNSHIP PLANNING SUB COMMITTEE

MINUTES OF MEETING Wednesday, 27 July 2011

PRESENT: Councillor West (in the Chair); Councillors Boriss, Philip Burke, Burns, Susan Emmott and Holly

OFFICERS: M. Butler (Planning and Regulation Service) and M. Hardman (Legal and Democratic Services)

Apologies for Absence: Councillor Wardle

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST 19 In accordance with the Code of Conduct for Councillors and Voting Co-opted Members and the Code of Conduct for Members and Officers dealing with Planning Matters, Councillor Holly declared a personal interest in accordance with the first- mentioned Code in respect of agenda item 2 relating to a request to fell trees within the Old Burial Ground, off St Leonard’s Street, Middleton.

REQUEST FOR WORKS TO TREES WITHIN THE OLD BURIAL GROUND, OFF ST LEONARD'S STREET, MIDDLETON TOWN CENTRE CONSERVATION AREA 20 The Service Director – Planning and Regulation (MT./11) sought authorisation to approve consent for works to trees located within the Old Burial Ground, off St Leonard’s Street, which fall within the Middleton Town Centre Conservation Area.

The Service Director advised that the Local Plans Team had suggested that once the trees had been felled, then replacement trees should be planted at a ratio of two for one. This was for general biodiversity and carbon storage/environmental reasons. It was considered however, that this proposal was seeking to secure the enhancement of the site and reduce the overall amount of tree cover on the site (not to increase it), and also that many of the trees concerned were self-seeded and poor specimens. As such, the suggestion for re-planting was being discounted. DECIDED – That (1) consent be granted for the works as listed below to trees located within the Old Burial Ground, off St. Leonard’s Street and identified on the submitted plan, for reasons as detailed within the submitted report – • Group G1 – Felling of seven Poplars • Group G2 – Removal and stump treatment of all self-seeded trees blocking views between the Samuel Bamford Monument and Middleton Town Centre with the exception of one Maple and one Beech • Group G3 – Removal and stump treatment of all self-seeded trees to the south of the perimeter footpath (rear of 13-29 Market Place) • Group G4 – Removal and stump treatment of all self seeded trees • Group G5 – Removal of all self-seeded saplings with the exception of two Oaks • Group G6 - Removal of all dangerous or diseased specimens as part of a woodland management scheme • Group G7 – Removal of all self-seeded trees located alongside eastern boundary wall with the exception of four mature specimens (indicated in figure 1) which are to be crown lifted to a height of 2.5 metres;

Page 7 (2) the coverage and positions of those trees considered to be locally important and to be retained be noted.

Page 8 Agenda Item 4

REPORT FOR DECISION

Agenda item no:

Middleton Township Committee 8th September, 2011

Report of the Head of Planning & Regulation

Nomination of Elected Township Members to the Edgar Wood & Middleton Heritage Initiative Board

Wards affected: North Middleton, South Report Author: David Morris and Kerrie Smith Middleton & West Middleton Telephone: (01706) 924352

To ask the Township Committee to nominate two Elected Members to the Edgar Wood & Middleton Heritage Initiative Board

1. It is recommended that the Committee;

1.1. note that Councillor Peter Williams and Councillor Michael Holly currently sit on the Edgar Wood & Middleton Heritage Initiative Board, 1.2. note that the Board protocol allows for up to four elected members to sit on the Initiative Board, 1.3. in light of 1.1 and 1.2, further nominate a minimum of one and a maximum of two elected members to represent the Council on the Edgar Wood & Middleton Heritage Initiative Board;

Reasons for recommendation: 1.4. The Heritage Initiative is a regeneration scheme to invest in Middleton’s heritage that combines £1,975,800 grant from the Heritage Lottery Fund with Council monies and private contributions. It will have a significant impact upon the Middleton Town Centre Conservation Area.

1.5. The Heritage Initiative Board needs to have an enthusiastic representation of community, business and elected representatives.

1.6. There is currently a shortage of elected members on the Board.

Page 9

2. Alternatives considered:

2.1. Not nominating additional Elected Members to the Heritage Initiative Board may result in a situation where neither Councillors Williams nor Holly are able to attend a Board meeting so that the Council is not represented.

3. Consultation undertaken/proposed:

3.1. The need to appoint further Elected Members to the Board was discussed at the last Board Meeting on 12 th July 2011.

4. Report: Introduction 4.1 The Heritage Lottery Fund (HLF) approved the Stage 2 Bid for the Edgar Wood and Middleton Heritage Initiative in March 2011 under their Townscape Heritage Initiative Programme (THI). A THI is a heritage-led regeneration scheme that invests in historic buildings through repair and reinstatement grants, promotes training in traditional building skills and helps local people learn about their heritage. The Heritage Initiative will last for 5 years and is run by the THI Manager, David Morris and THI Officer, Kerrie Smith. Their posts are funded by the Heritage Lottery Fund within the management structure of the Council.

4.2 A partnership board with representation from the local community, businesses, elected members and others as relevant, is an essential part of overseeing the Heritage Initiative. It means the THI is run as close to the wishes of the community as possible. Grant schemes are approved by the Manager and the Board with the Heritage Lottery Fund also approving schemes committing large sums of its money and those where the Council receives Lottery money.

The Heritage Initiative Board 4.3 The Heritage Initiative Board works to deliver the Edgar Wood and Middleton Heritage Initiative within the agreed terms of the Heritage Initiative signed between the Council and the Heritage Lottery Fund. 4.4 The role of the Board is to consider and approve grants and projects, most of which are funded by the Heritage Lottery Fund, in liaison with the THI manager. A broad and enthusiastic representation of local interests on the Board is highly desirable as the THI tackles the problems relating to the heritage of the town centre. 4.5 The Heritage Initiative Board meets at least quarterly in the Edgar Wood Centre (Long Street Methodist Church). The next Board meeting is 6pm Tuesday 4 th October 2011.

Page 10

Nominations 4.6 The current membership of the THI Board is contained in Appendix 2. The protocol allows for up to four elected members to sit on the Board, meaning two positions are currently vacant. The Board protocol does not allow substitutes to attend a meeting on behalf of a Board Member who is unable to attend. A situation might therefore arise where neither Councillor Williams nor Councillor Holly are able to attend a meeting. The Council would not therefore be represented at that meeting. 4.7 It is therefore recommended that a minimum of one and a maximum of two councillors be nominated to the Heritage Initiative Board. Committee should note that if any board member fails to attend three consecutive meetings of the Board (not including emergency meetings) then their membership will cease unless the Board determine that it shall not do so. Being on the Board is therefore not a nominal role. 4.8 It might be considered desirable to have Board Members from each of the three wards that make up the Heritage Initiative area; South, West and North Middleton. However, this is not essential and an enthusiasm for the task is considered more important. 4.9 The Township’s nomination will be automatically elected to the Heritage Initiative Board.

For further information and background papers: For further information about this report or access to any background papers please contact Kerrie Smith or David Morris of the Edgar Wood & Middleton Heritage Initiative, The Edgar Wood Centre, Long Street Methodist Church, Lever Street, Middleton, M24 5UE or ring 0161 643 4362 [email protected]

Page 11

APPENDIX 1

The Edgar Wood and Middleton Heritage Initiative Initiative Board Protocol August 2011

A. Name:

1) The name of the Board will be the Edgar Wood and Middleton Heritage Initiative Board (“The Board”)

B. Purpose:

1) To work in partnership with Heritage Lottery Fund and Rochdale MBC (“the Council”) to deliver the Edgar Wood and Middleton Heritage Initiative within the agreed terms of the Initiative.

C. Terms of reference:

1) To consider and approve grants and projects and recommend them to the Council, taking account of value for money and the aims of the Edgar Wood and Middleton Heritage Initiative. The approved aims appear below. 2) To promote and champion the Edgar Wood and Middleton Heritage Initiative, the Edgar Wood architectural heritage and the conservation and heritage-led regeneration of Middleton Town Centre Conservation Area.

E. Membership:

1) Membership shall comprise a maximum of: § 4 elected members of the Council § 4 members drawn from residential and community groups § 4 members from the local business sector

2) New nominations to the Board shall be considered by the Board. Council nominees will become Board members automatically. 3) The Chair will be elected by the Board to be reviewed on a twelve monthly basis on the first meeting of every financial year. 4) In any event where the Board temporarily ceases to function, its role and responsibilities will fall to the Project Manager who will act in consultation with the partners the Heritage Lottery Fund and Rochdale MBC. This will be a short term measure and the Project Manager will seek to establish a functioning Board as soon as is practicable.

Page 12

MEETINGS AND PROCEEDINGS

F. Meetings:

1) The Board will meet at least once quarterly 2) Where possible the Board meetings are to be held at the Edgar Wood Centre, Long Street, Middleton. 3) All meetings will have an agenda, minutes and reports as appropriate and these will be forwarded by the Project Manager and Officer to members in advance of meetings. 4) All decisions will be taken by a majority of votes. 5) Decisions will normally be made at the Board meeting following written or verbal reports by the Project Manager and Officer. Urgent decisions that involve financial decisions below £25,000 shall be taken by the Chair in liaison with the Project Manager and following consultation with the full Board and consideration of their written responses. Urgent decisions involving a financial decision above £25,000 will be taken by a vote of the Board at an emergency meeting. 6) The Board may as it sees fit in any particular case decide to delegate decisions to approve grants and other projects to the Project Manager. 7) The Project Manager and Officer will act as secretariat to the Board.

G. Attendance:

1) There will be a quorum when at least 5 Board members are present at the meeting. 2) If any member fails to attend three consecutive meetings of the Board (not including emergency meetings) then their membership will cease unless the Board determine that it shall not do so. 4) The Project Manager or Officer will attend Board meetings to provide reports and advice as necessary.

CODE OF CONDUCT

H. Confidentiality

1) Financial and grant information will be treated by the Board as confidential. All Board members must respect this confidentiality as individuals. No such information shall be disclosed to another party, or to the press, without the express consent of the Board.

I. Declaration of Interest

1) Any Board member with a personal interest in or association to a proposal being considered by the Board shall disclose that interest or association but may remain at the meeting and engage in discussion but shall not vote on the matter, if this arises. 2) Any member who has a prejudicial interest shall disclose that interest, must withdraw from the meeting and shall not discuss or vote on the matter.

Page 13

3) Any interest shall be noted and recorded in the minutes.

J. Alterations to the agreed protocol:

1) To alter the agreed protocol a member must ensure that the suggested amendment is put as an item on the agenda for the next meeting. 2) 6 members (50% of the total) must be present and agree for the alteration to be accepted.

K. Dissolution:

1) The Board will be dissolved when all the common funds have been distributed and/or the five year programme is completed, whichever first occurs.

ROCHDALE COUNCIL

L. The Council:

1) The Council will provide the following services:

§ Servicing the Board through the Project Manager and Officer

§ Providing financial information

§ Reporting progress to Heritage Lottery Memorial Fund

2) The Council undertakes to implement the decision of the Board subject to:

§ The Council having the legal power to do so and the decisions being lawful and in accordance with the Council’s Constitution

§ The decisions complying with the grant offer and rules of the Heritage Lottery Memorial Fund.

§ For the avoidance of doubt, nothing in this Protocol shall be taken as fettering the discretion of the Council where such fettering would be unlawful.

Page 14

AGREEMENT

I hereby agree to abide by the terms set out in the above working arrangements and protocol for the Edgar Wood and Middleton Heritage Initiative Board.

Signed: Date: Chair of the Edgar Wood & Middleton Heritage Initiative Board on behalf of the Board

Signed: Date: On behalf of Rochdale MBC

Approved aims of the Edgar Wood and Middleton Heritage Initiative

Aim 1 - Regeneration through Historic Building and Townscape Conservation

Aim 2 – Tourism, Promotion and Education

Aim 3 – Public Participation and Partnership Working, including Heritage Skills Training

Membership of the Edgar Wood and Middleton Heritage Initaitive Board

Elected Members:

Councillor Michael Holly Councilllor Peter Williams (2 positions vacant)

Community Representatives:

The Rev'd Canon Nicholas Feist (Rector of Middleton and Thornham) Mrs Christine Grime (Middleton Heritage & Conservation Group) Mr Terry Linden (Middleton Culture, Leisure, Tourism & CoCo) Mr John Miller (Heritage Trust for the North West)

Business Representatives:

Mr Malcolm Allan (McBride) Mr John Berry (John Miguel) (2 positions vacant)

Page 15 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 16 Agenda Item 5

Page 17 Page 18 Page 19 Page 20 Page 21 Page 22 Page 23 Page 24 Agenda Item 6

REPORT FOR DECISION

Agenda item no:

Middleton Township Committee 8th September 2011

Report of the Service Director – Highways & Engineering

Proposed Limited Time Parking Restrictions – Mainway/Kirkway Shopping Precinct, Middleton

Wards affected: South Middleton Ward Report Author: Colin Crabtree

Telephone: (01706) 924561

To allow the committee to formally terminate this scheme

1. RECOMMENDATION 1.1 The Committee make note of content of the report and approve the cancellation of the proposed Traffic Regulation Order process.

2. REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION 2.1 To allow for the proposed scheme to be closed.

3. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 3.1 None

4. CONSULTATION UNDERTAKEN 4.1 Legal notices were placed in the press and displayed on site in accordance with statutory requirements.

5. THE PROPOSALS 5.1 It was proposed to introduce limited waiting parking bays within the car park at the Mainway/Kirkway shopping precinct in the form of “Waiting Limited Mon-Sat 8am-6pm 2 hours 30 mins, Return Prohibited Within 1 hour”. 5.2 The proposals also included 6 enforceable 24 hour disabled parking bays adjacent to the shops.

1

Page 25 5.3 The proposals were designed to prevent vehicles from parking all day and allow more parking spaces for customers. 5.4 The proposed disabled bays were repositioned to ensure easier access for disabled badge holders.

6. BACKGROUND 5.1 During the promotion of the Traffic Regulation Order it was alleged that the land in question was unadopted and has no Highway rights. 5.2 Prior to the proposals being promoted, Highways & Engineering inspected the adoption records which showed that the Car Park was adopted. RMBC have maintained, illuminated and gritted this area since circa 1963. 5.3 After lengthy research and on advice from RMBC’s legal section, no proof can be found that the highway is adopted or highway rights established. 5.4 As a result of this, the proposals have been suspended awaiting the decision of Middleton Township Committee to cancel the Traffic Regulation Order.

7. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS 5.1 None

8. LEGAL IMPLICATIONS 7.1 None

8. RISK ASSESSMENT IMPLICATIONS 8.1 None

9. EQUALITIES IMPACTS

9.1 Workforce Equality Impacts Assessment There are no (significant) workforce equality issues arising form this report.

9.2 Equality/Community Impact Assessments There are no (significant) equality/community issues arising form this report.

For further Information and Background Papers: For further information about this report or access to any background papers please contact Mr Crabtree. Tel: 01706 924561

2

Page 26 Agenda Item 7

REPORT FOR DECISION

Agenda item no:

Middleton Township Committee 8 September 2011

Report of the Operations Director, Unity & Impact Partnerships

Disposal of Surplus Property Assets

Wards affected: Various Report Author: Nigel MacDonald, Senior Valuer

Telephone: (01706) 923275

The purpose of this report is to attain Township’s approval to release of the subject premises for disposal.

1. It is recommended that:

1.1 Agenda Item a) Milton Street Family & Children Centre, Milton Street : Be released for disposal.

2. Reasons for recommendation: 2.1 The premises are surplus to the Council’s requirements through service efficiencies . The closure and sale of this property supports the Council’s savings targets

3. Alternatives and risks considered: 3.1 The premises have been released through the Efficiencies Programme as being surplus to requirements. Continued ownership of this asset places strain on the Council’s budget and puts further jobs at risk.

4. Consultation undertaken/proposed: 4.1 The above closure proposal is contained in Efficiency Report PPLC09, which has been widely consulted upon

$toza1tq5.doc Page 1 of 2

Page 27

5. Report: 5.1 Agenda Item a) Milton Street Nursery, Milton Street : Vacant single storey brick Edgar Wood building with land to the rear. It is anticipated this property will be sold at auction

6. Personnel Implications: 6.1 None

7. Financial Implications: 7.1 The disposal will generate a capital receipt and revenue savings that contribute towards the council’s efficiency target.

8. Conclusions: 8.1 The Council is encouraged by Government to release assets that are surplus to its requirements, and to continually review its need to hold land and property assets. The disposal of surplus assets assists the Council in its provision of services by producing capital receipts and reduces borrowings and grant reliance and assists in achieving its Efficiencies targets. The disposal of surplus assets reduces the Councils liabilities and the release of development opportunities encourages economic activity in the Borough.

For further information and background papers: For further information about this report or access to any background papers please contact Nigel MacDonald, Senior Valuer, Impact Partnership Tel: (01706) 923275

Roger Barrett Operations Director Unity & Impact Partnerships

$toza1tq5.doc Page 2 of 2

Page 28 Agenda Item 9

REPORT FOR CONSULTATION

Heywood Township Committee 5th September 2011

Pennines Township Committee 6th September 2011

Rochdale Township Committee 7th September 2011

Middleton Township Committee 8th September 2011

Report of Director of Legal & Democratic Services

Review of Polling Districts and Polling Places

Wards affected: All Report Author: Clare Poole

Telephone: (01706) 92 4759

This report is to inform and consult Members on the statutory review of polling districts and polling places.

1. It is recommended that:

1.1 Township Committee assesses the make-up of polling districts within the Borough and suitability of polling places. 1.2 Township Committee considers the submissions made by council members during the consultation period attached in Appendix 5 and the recommendations made by the Returning Officer in Appendix 4. 1.3 Township Committee makes a submission for consideration at the next meeting of the Regulatory Committee on 15 September. 1.3 A further report will be presented to the next meeting of the Regulatory Committee on 15 September following the code of consultation.

2. Reasons for recommendation:

2.1 Following the introduction of the review of Polling Districts and Polling Places (Parliamentary Elections) Regulations in 2006, each local authority is required to carry out these reviews on a regular four-yearly cycle.

1

Page 29 2.2 It is recommended that alterations to polling districts be timed to coincide with the annual revision of the register of electors on 1 December which will help to avoid confusion for recipients of the register. 2.2 This review must be completed and implemented by the end of December 2011, so for the changes to be included in the register on 1 December this year, Full Council must consider and confirm the proposals at their meeting on 19 October 2011.

3. Alternatives considered:

3.1 Any submissions for changes to polling districts or polling places will be considered.

4. Consultation undertaken/proposed:

4.1 Public consultation started on Friday 1 July and lasted until Monday 1 August. 4.2 All elected members, MP’s and local political party offices were contacted inviting them to make submissions. 4.3 Other interested parties were also contacted inviting them to make submissions. 4.4 Details of the consultation including large scale maps of all polling districts were on public deposit at the Town Hall reception, Customer Service Centres in Heywood, Middleton, Milnrow and Littleborough and available to view on the council’s website. 4.5 Licensing and Regulatory Committee will consider any submissions made, make alternative recommendations and ultimately make the final recommendations for Full Council approval on 19 th October.

5. Main text of report:

5.1 Appendix 1 is the background report regarding the review of polling districts and polling places. 5.2 Appendix 2 is the list of current polling stations. 5.3 Appendix 3 is a list of electorates per street. 5.4 Appendix 4 is the recommendations from the Electoral Services Officer regarding the review. 5.5 Appendix 5 is the submissions made to the consultation.

6. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

No direct financial implications .

7. LEGAL IMPLICATIONS

7.1 Following the introduction of the review of Polling Districts and Polling Places (Parliamentary Elections) Regulations in 2006, each local authority is required to carry out these reviews on a regular four-yearly cycle.

8. RISK ASSESSMENT IMPLICATIONS

8.1 There are no specific risk issues for members to consider arising from this report.

2

Page 30 9. EQUALITIES IMPACTS

9.1 Workforce Equality Impacts Assessment

There are no workforce equality issues arising form this report.

9.2 Equality/Community Impact Assessments

There will be equality/community impact assessments completed during the consultation process on the proposals made.

For further Information and Background Papers: For further information about this report or access to any background papers or maps please contact Clare Poole Ext 4759

3

Page 31 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 32

APPENDIX 1

A Review of Polling Districts and Polling Places

Page 33

Index 1. What is the difference between a polling district, polling place and polling station? 2. Polling districts 2.1 Who is responsible for designating polling districts? 2.2 What is the definition of a relevant authority? 2.3 What are the rules? 2.4 What is the Electoral Registration Officers responsibility? 3. Polling places 3.1 Who is responsible for designating polling places? 3.2 What are the rules? 4. Polling Stations 4.1 Who is responsible for designating polling stations? 4.2 What are the rules? 5. Review of polling districts and polling places 5.1 General background 5.2 First review 5.3 Subsequent reviews 5.4 The review process 5.5 Notice of the holding of a review 6. The Role of the Returning Officer 7. Other representations 8. Evaluating the suitability of potential polling places 9. Administration of the review 10. Completion of the review 11. The role of the Electoral Commission 11.1 Who may make representation to the Electoral Commission? 11.2 Review by the Electoral Commission 12. Non compliance 13. Other accessibility issues to consider 13.1 Polling stations 13.2 Assistance to voters 13.3 Translations 13.4 Other assistance 13.5 Accessibility checklist

Appendices

Appendix A – Legislation Appendix B – Extract from the RPA 1983 (as inserted by Section 16 of the EAA 2006) Appendix C – Extract from Statutory Instrument 2006 No. 2965

Page 34

1. What is the difference between a polling district, a polling place and a polling station?

A polling district is a geographical sub-division of an electoral area, i.e. a UK Parliamentary constituency, a European Parliamentary electoral region, a ward or an electoral division.

A polling place is a geographical area in which a polling station is located. However, as there is no legal definition of what a polling place is the geographical area could be defined as tightly as a particular building or as widely as the entire polling district.

A polling station is the actual area where the process of voting takes place, and must be located within the polling place designated for the particular polling district.

2. Polling districts

2.1 Who is responsible for designating polling districts?

Every relevant authority in the UK is responsible for dividing its area into polling districts for UK Parliamentary elections for so much of any constituency as is situated in its area (1), and for keeping the polling districts under review.

For European Parliamentary elections, the same polling districts as designated for UK Parliamentary elections are to be used unless the relevant authority considers that there are special circumstances that make alternative designations appropriate (2)

For local government elections, a local authority may divide its designated electoral areas (i.e. wards or electoral divisions) into polling districts (3)

Although there is no requirement to sub-divide local government electoral areas into polling districts, it is recognised good practice to do so. When doing so, every effort must be made to ensure that the polling district scheme for local government elections mirrors as closely as possible that agreed for parliamentary elections (4)

2.2 What is the definition of a relevant authority? a) In England, the council of a district or London borough; b) In Scotland, a local authority; and c) In Wales, the council of a county or county borough (5)

2.3 What are the rules?

When designating polling districts, relevant authorities must seek to ensure that all the electors in the constituency have such reasonable facilities for voting as are practicable in the circumstances.

In addition, and unless there are special circumstances that lead the authority to determine otherwise, each parish in England and each community in Wales must be in a separate polling district.

Similarly in Scotland, each electoral ward must be divided into two or more separate polling districts.

Page 35

2.4 What is the Electoral Registration Officer’s responsibility?

Where a relevant authority makes any alterations to the polling districts within its area, the Electoral Registration Officer must amend their register of electors accordingly.

The changes to the register take effect on the date that the Electoral Registration Officer publishes a notice stating that the adaptations have been made (6)

It is recommended that alterations to polling districts be timed to coincide with the annual revision of the register of electors on 1 December. This will help to avoid confusion both for electoral professionals and other recipients of the register. (This would mean consideration at full Council on 19 October 2011)

However, there may be instances where alterations must be made at other times of the year.

In such cases, the Electoral Registration Officer will need to publish a notice fourteen calendar days before the publication of the revised version of the register in a local newspaper, at their office and at some other conspicuous place or places in the area (7)

3. Polling Places

3.1 Who is responsible for designating polling places?

Every relevant authority in the UK must designate a polling place for every polling district in the parliamentary constituency (8) unless the size or other circumstances of the polling district are such that the situation of the polling station does not materially affect the convenience of the electorate.

The relevant authority must also keep the polling places under review.

3.2 What are the rules?

Relevant authorities must: a) Seek to ensure that all the electors in the constituency have such reasonable facilities for voting as are practicable in the circumstances; b) Seek to ensure that so far as is reasonable and practicable, the polling places they are responsible for are accessible to all electors, including those who are disabled, and when considering the designation of a polling place, must have regard to the accessibility needs of disabled persons (9)

In addition, the polling place for a polling district must be within the area of the district unless special circumstances make it desirable to designate an area either wholly or partly outside of the polling district.

The polling place must also be small enough to indicate to electors in different parts of the polling district how they will be able to reach their designated polling station.

Should a relevant authority fail to designate a polling place, the entire polling district will be classed as the polling place for that district.

4. Polling Stations

4.1 Who is responsible for designating polling stations?

The Returning Officer for the particular election must provide a sufficient number of polling stations, and allocate the electors to those polling stations in such manner as they think is the most convenient

(At the 2011 Referendum this was overridden by direction from the Chief Counting Officer at the Electoral Commission who specified the ratio of electors to each polling station).

4.2 What are the rules? Page 36

Polling stations must be located within the polling places designated by the relevant authority.

In a UK Parliamentary constituency in Scotland that comprises the whole or any part of more than one local government area, there must be at least one polling station in each of those local government areas.

The election rules permit the Returning Officer to provide one or more polling stations within the same room, and must supply each with a sufficient number of voting compartments.

5. Review of polling districts and polling places

5.1 General background

Section 16 of the Electoral Administration Act 2006 introduced a number of changes to the Representation of the People Act 1983 in respect of the way in which reviews of polling districts and polling places must be undertaken.

5.2 First review

The most important thing to note is that by 31 December 2011, every relevant authority must have undertaken and completed a review of all of the polling districts and polling places in its area (10), except in the circumstances where a polling district or polling place is created in 2011 (11) (when in such circumstances, the first review of the polling district or polling place must be completed before the end of the period of four years starting with the date on which the designation is made) (12).

This does not apply to Rochdale MBC who last amended their Polling Places and Districts in 2007

5.3 Subsequent reviews

Following the first review, the relevant authority must then complete a further review of every polling district and polling place before the end of the period of four years starting with the completion of the previous review (13). In effect, this means that by 31 December 2011, every relevant authority must have undertaken two full reviews of the electoral arrangements in its area.

It is important to note that if it wishes to do so, the relevant authority may undertake reviews of all or some of the designated polling districts and polling places at any time (14), but must undertake a review of each within four years of the previous review.

For administrative convenience, it would seem sensible to review all polling districts and polling places on a regular four-yearly cycle, regardless of whether or not a particular polling district or polling place has been reviewed for some reason e.g. because of an influx of electors in an area or the non availability of a building designated as a polling place in the intervening period.

This will help in ensuring that a consistent approach is taken across the relevant authority’s area.

5.4 The review process

Schedule A1 to the Representation of the People Act 1983 sets out the steps relevant authorities must follow in undertaking any review of polling districts and/or polling places.

Prior to commencing the review, the electoral administrator will need to compile a great deal of the background information necessary for informed decisions to be made by Councillors.

This information will include:

• electorate figures, broken down to street level;

• details of existing polling places;

• detailed and up to date maps of a scale that will assist in the designation of polling district boundaries.

Page 37 5.5 Notice of the holding of a review

The relevant authority is required to publish notice of the holding of a review (15)

Schedule A1 does not specify in what manner the relevant authority is required to publish this notice, but it would seem reasonable to follow the principles set out in the Review of Polling Districts and Polling Places (Parliamentary Elections) Regulations 2006 for the publication of a Returning Officer’s representations.

6. The role of the Returning Officer

The relevant authority is required to consult the Returning Officer for every parliamentary election held in a constituency that is wholly or partly within its area.

The Returning Officer is required to make representations to the relevant authority, which must include information as to the location of polling stations (both existing and proposed) within polling places (both existing and proposed) (16)

Within thirty calendar days of their receipt, the relevant authority is required to publish the Returning Officer’s representations as a minimum:

• at the relevant authority’s office;

• at least one other conspicuous place in the area; and

• on the relevant authority’s website (17)

7. Other representations

In reviewing polling places, the relevant authority is required to actively seek representations from such persons as it thinks have particular expertise in relation to:

• access to premises; or

• facilities for persons who have different forms of disability (18)

Such persons must be given the opportunity to make representations and to comment on the representations made by the Returning Officer.

A key factor the relevant authority will have to consider at the outset of the review is the identification of those persons it feels has particular expertise in accessibility issues.

In addition, any elector in a constituency may make representations on the designation of polling places to the relevant authority (19).

Although not specifically provided for in the review rules, it would seem sensible to actively encourage representations from local constituency political parties and independent candidates. By doing so, the relevant authority will be giving key stakeholders in the electoral process the opportunity to participate.

Further sources of expertise from which representations might be sought include the relevant authority’s own planning and property services departments. Each will be able to provide technical guidance on the availability and suitability of locations or premises, and details of residential developments that might have future implications on electoral arrangements.

Administrators may wish to model possible arrangements by utilising mapping and planning tools available within the authority. Local authorities now have access to GIS mapping services, many of which combine data from different services that may be of use in testing the suitability of a proposed scheme.

In addition, the relevant authority might wish to obtain up to date mapping information from the Ordnance Survey prior to formally considering the suitability of any representations received.

An extremely practical way of undertaking the review is to consider the suitability of the available polling places first, i.e. to identify what premises are available, and then to designate the polling district boundaries and allocate the electors to what is actually available. Although the rules are drafted to require the relevant Page 38 authority to sub-divide its area into polling districts and to then consult on the allocation of the associated polling places, there seems little sense in designating polling districts that are devoid of suitable polling places.

It is important to note that representations made by any person in connection with the review of polling places may include proposals for alternative polling places, which must then be considered by the relevant authority.

8. Evaluating the suitability of potential polling places

Regardless of the expert advice the relevant authority is required to seek, it is important that the accessibility needs of all voters are considered when designating polling places.

There are a number of steps that can be taken to facilitate this process (20):

Consider the location of the polling place Accessibility Availability of parking Approaches to the polling station Entrance to the polling station Inside the building

Another key factor to consider when assessing the suitability of a particular building or location is the facilities available to polling station staff.

It must not be overlooked that staff will be on duty for approximately sixteen hours, and not permitted to leave the premises. Their basic human needs must not be discounted.

9. Administration of the review

It is important to note that the relevant authority is responsible for dividing its area into polling districts, so a decision will need to be taken before the review commences as to how the authority wishes to consider the representations made, and ultimately designate the polling districts and polling places within its area.

For Rochdale MBC, this task will be delegated to the Licensing and Regulatory committee who will meet on 14/07, 22/08, 15/09 and 06/10 to consider all appropriate representations.

At the end of the review process, the committee then makes its recommendations to a meeting of the full council for ratification (19/10) following which the polling districts and polling places are formally designated and come into being.

10. Completion of the review

On completion of a review, the relevant authority is required to give reasons for its decisions in respect of the designation of both polling districts and polling places (21)

In addition, the authority must publish:

• all correspondence sent to a Returning Officer in connection with the review, and

• all correspondence sent to any person whom the authority thinks has particular expertise in relation to access to premises or facilities for persons who have different forms of disability;

• all representations made by any person in connection with the review;

• the minutes of any meetings held by the authority where details of the review have been considered;

• details of the actual designations of polling districts and polling places agreed as a result of the review; and

• Details of where the results of the review have been published (22).

Page 39 Schedule A1 does not specify in what manner the relevant authority is required to publish this notice, but it would seem reasonable to follow the principles set out in the Review of Polling Districts and Polling Places (Parliamentary Elections) Regulations 2006 for the publication of a Returning Officer’s representations.

11. The role of the Electoral Commission

The Electoral Commission has no role in the review process itself, although guidance has been issued to assist relevant authorities in the administration of the reviews in the form of a circular distributed in 2010 - EC19 (2010)

However, the Commission has an extremely important role in respect of considering representations and observations made that a relevant authority has not conducted a review so as to:

• meet the reasonable requirements of the electors in the constituency, or a body of them (i.e. the reasonable requirements of a particular area of the authority have not been satisfactorily met); or

• take sufficient account of the accessibility to disabled persons of polling stations within a designated polling place (23)

11.1 Who may make representation to the Electoral Commission?

Section 18D (1) of the Representation of the People Act 1983 sets out who may make representations to the Electoral Commission, namely:

• in England, any parish council which is wholly or partly situated within the constituency (or parish meeting where there is no such council);

• in Wales, any community council which is wholly or partly situated within the constituency;

• not less than thirty registered electors in the constituency (although electors registered anonymously cannot make such a representation (24)

• any person (except the Returning Officer) who made representations to the authority when the review was being undertaken; and

• any person who is not an elector in a constituency in the authority’s area who the Commission feels has sufficient interest in the accessibility of disabled persons to polling places in the area or has particular expertise in relation to the access to premises or facilities of disabled persons.

In addition, the Returning Officer may make observations on any representations made to the Commission (25)

11.2 Review held by the Electoral Commission

The Electoral Commission is required to consider any such representations and observations, and after doing so, may direct the relevant authority to make any alterations it sees necessary to the polling places designated by the review (26)

Should an authority fail to make the alterations within two months of the direction being given, the Commission may make the alterations itself.

12. Non-compliance

It is important to note that the outcome of an election cannot be questioned simply because a relevant authority, an Electoral Registration Officer, a Returning Officer or the Electoral Commission fails to comply with any or all aspects of a review process (27)

Page 40 13. Other accessibility issues to consider

13.1 Polling stations

As detailed above, it is the responsibility of the Returning Officer to provide a sufficient number of polling stations within the polling places designated by the relevant authority, and to allocate the electors to those polling stations in such manner as they think is most convenient (28)

However, in complying with this requirement, the Returning Officer should have regard to the accessibility needs of all voters. In this respect, accessibility not only means entering and moving around a polling station, but also the facilities available to assist electors in casting their votes. Unless there are extenuating circumstances that make it impractical to do so, the polling places designated by relevant authorities should be accessible to all voters.

However, prior to an election being held, the Returning Officer should ensure that there is level access to both the polling place and the polling station(s), and where there is not, suitable adaptations, such as temporary ramping made available.

13.2 Assistance to voters

Within the polling station, the Returning Officer is required to provide a number of facilities specifically designed to assist voters.

The most important of these is the staff, who should be fully trained in their roles and responsibilities, and understand what facilities must be provided.

In summary, at least one copy of the following must be provided, subject to direction, inside the polling station (29)

• directions for the guidance of voters;

• enlarged version of the ballot paper for the assistance of partially-sighted voters;

• device to enable blind and partially-sighted voters to vote unaided, i.e. a Braille template;

• inside every voting compartment, “vote for one candidate only …” or “vote for no more than X candidates” notices, as appropriate;

• hand-held copy of the enlarged ballot paper for the assistance of partially-sighted voters (30)

In addition, a copy of the directions for the guidance of voters must be displayed outside the polling station.

13.3 Translations

The Returning Officer is now authorised to make available in alternative formats any document published in connection with an election as he or she thinks appropriate, except nomination papers and the ballot papers (31)

This means that the Returning Officer may, in addition to the copies above, make the polling station notices available in:

• Braille;

• languages other than English;

• graphical representations;

• other means of making the information accessible to persons who might otherwise have reasonable access, e.g. audio.

Page 41 13.4 Other assistance

Presiding Officers may (in the presence of any polling agents present) assist voters who are incapacitated by blindness or other disability.

Similarly, a blind or disabled voter may be assisted by a companion, who must either be directly related to them, or be entitled themselves to vote at that election.

Where the Presiding Officer assists a voter, the appropriate details must be entered on the “list of votes marked by the presiding officer”. Where a companion assists a voter, the companion must complete a “declaration made by the companion of a voter with disabilities”.

13.5 Accessibility checklist

It is good practice for the Returning Officer to check that every polling station is, and remains, accessible throughout polling day, and is set up correctly.

Page 42

Appendix A

References

(1) Section 18A (2) of the Representation of the People Act 1983 (2) Regulation 8 of the European Parliamentary Elections Regulations 2004 (3) Section 31 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 (4) Sections 31(2) and (3) of the Representation of the People Act 1983 (5) Section 18E (3) of the Representation of the People Act 1983 (6) Section 18A (5) of the Representation of the People Act 1983 (7) Section 13 (3) of the Representation of the People Act 1983 and Regulation 36 (1) of the Representation of the People (England and Wales) Regulations 2001 and Regulation 36 (1) of the Representation of the People (Scotland) Regulations 2001 (8) Section 18B (1) of the Representation of the People Act 1983 (9) Section 18B (4) of the Representation of the People Act 1983 (10) Section 18C (1) of the Representation of the People Act 1983 (11) Section 18C (2) of the Representation of the People Act 1983 (12) Section 18C (3) of the Representation of the People Act 1983 (13) Section 18C (4) of the Representation of the People Act 1983 (14) Section 18C (5) of the Representation of the People Act 1983 (15) Paragraph 1 of Schedule A1 to the Representation of the People Act 1983 (16) Paragraphs 3 and 4 of Schedule A1 to the Representation of the People Act 1983 (17) Regulation 3 of the Review of Polling Districts and Polling Places (Parliamentary Elections) Regulations 2006 (18) Paragraph 4 of Schedule A1 to the Representation of the People Act 1983 (19) Paragraph 5 of Schedule A1 to the Representation of the People Act 1983 (20) Adapted from Section 5 of Part B of managing a local government election – a good practice manual (2007) issued by the Electoral Commission (21) Paragraph 7 of Schedule A1 to the Representation of the People Act 1983 (22) Regulation 4 of the Review of Polling Districts and Polling Places (Parliamentary Elections) Regulations 2006 (23) Section 18D (2) of the Representation of the People Act 1983 (24) Section 18D (7) of the Representation of the People Act 1983 (25) Section 18D (3) of the Representation of the People Act 1983 (26) Section 18D (4) of the Representation of the People Act 1983 (27) Section 18E (2) of the Representation of the People Act 1983 (28) See the appropriate election rules: for example, at UK Parliamentary elections, Rule 25 of the Parliamentary Elections Rules (Schedule 1 to the Representation of the People Act 1983) applies (29) See the appropriate election rules: for example, at UK Parliamentary elections, Rule 29 of the Parliamentary Elections Rules (Schedule 1 to the Representation of the People Act 1983) applies (30) Section 199B of the Representation of the People Act 1983 (31) Section 199B of the Representation of the People Act 1983

Page 43

Appendix B

Extract from the Representation of the People Act 1983 (as inserted by Section 16 of the Electoral Administration Act 2006)

18A - Polling districts at parliamentary elections

(1) Every constituency is to be divided into polling districts. (2) A relevant authority must— (a) divide its area into polling districts for the purpose of parliamentary elections for so much of any constituency as is situated in its area, and (b) keep the polling districts under review. (3) The following rules apply— (a) the authority must seek to ensure that all electors in a constituency in its area have such reasonable facilities for voting as are practicable in the circumstances; (b) in England, each parish is to be a separate polling district; (c) in Wales, each community is to be a separate polling district; (d) in Scotland, each electoral ward (within the meaning of section 1 of the Local Governance (Scotland) Act 2004) is to be divided into two or more separate polling districts. (4) Subsection (3) (b) to (d) does not apply if, in any case, there are special circumstances. (5) If an alteration of polling districts in an area is made under this section— (a) the registration officer who acts for the area must make such adaptations of his register of parliamentary electors as are necessary to take account of the alteration, and (b) the alteration is effective on the date on which the registration officer publishes a notice stating that the adaptations have been made by him.

18B Polling places at parliamentary elections

(1) A polling place is to be designated for each polling district in a constituency. (2) But subsection (1) does not apply if the size or other circumstances of a polling district are such that the situation of the polling stations does not materially affect the convenience of the electors or any body of them. (3) A relevant authority must— (a) designate the polling places for the polling districts in its area, and (b) keep the polling places in its area under review. (4) The following rules apply— (a) the authority must seek to ensure that all electors in a constituency in its area have such reasonable facilities for voting as are practicable in the circumstances; (b) the authority must seek to ensure that so far as is reasonable and practicable every polling place for which it is responsible is accessible to electors who are disabled; (c) the authority must have regard to the accessibility to disabled persons of potential polling stations in any place which it is considering designating as a polling place or the designation of which as a polling place it is reviewing; (d) the polling place for a polling district must be an area in the district, unless special circumstances make it desirable to designate an area wholly or partly outside the district; (e) the polling place for a polling district must be small enough to indicate to electors in different parts of the district how they will be able to reach the polling station. (5) If no polling place is designated for a polling district the polling district is to be taken to be the polling place.

18C Review of polling districts and places

(1) Each relevant authority must complete a review under sections 18A and 18B of all of the polling districts and polling places in its area before the end of the period of 12 months starting with the date on which section 16 of the Electoral Administration Act 2006 comes into force. (2) Subsection (1) does not apply in the case of a polling district or polling place (as the case may be) which is designated for the first time during that period. (3) In such a case, the first review of the polling district or polling place must be completed before the end of the period of four years starting with the date on which that designation is made. Page 44 (4) The authority must complete a further review of each polling district and polling place in its area before the end of the period of four years starting with the completion of the previous such review. (5) Subsections (1) to (4) do not prevent a relevant authority carrying out at any time a review of a particular polling district or polling place. (6) Schedule A1 has effect in relation to a review.

18D Review of polling districts and places: representations to Electoral Commission

(1) This section applies if in relation to a constituency in the area of a relevant authority a relevant representation is made to the Electoral Commission by— (a) an interested authority in England and Wales; (b) not less than 30 electors in the constituency; (c) a person (other than the returning officer) who has made representations under Schedule A1; (d) a person who is not an elector in a constituency in the authority’s area but who the Commission think has sufficient interest in the accessibility of disabled persons to polling places in the area or has particular expertise in relation to the access to premises or facilities of disabled persons. (2) A relevant representation is a representation that a review under section 18A or 18B has not been conducted by a relevant authority so as to— (a) Meet the reasonable requirements of the electors in the constituency or any body of those electors, or (b) Take sufficient account of the accessibility to disabled persons of polling stations within a designated polling place. (3) The returning officer for the constituency may make observations on representations made under this section. (4) The Electoral Commission must consider such representations and observations and may if they think fit- (a) Direct the relevant authority to make any alterations to the polling places designated by the review which the Commission thinks necessary in the circumstances; (b) If the authority fails to make the alterations before the end of the period of two months starting on the day the direction is given, make the alterations themselves. (5) Alterations made by the Electoral Commission under subsection (4) have effect as if they had been made by the relevant authority. (6) An interested authority in relation to a constituency in England and Wales is - (a) In England, the council of a parish, or where there is no such council the parish meeting of a parish, which is wholly or partly situated within the constituency; (b) In Wales, the council of a community which is so situated. (7) The reference in subsection (1) (b) to electors does not include persons who have an anonymous entry in the register of parliamentary electors or local government electors.

18E Sections 18A to 18D: supplemental

(1) This section applies for the purposes of sections 18A to 18D. (2) No election is to be questioned by reason of - (a) any non-compliance with the provisions of those sections, or (b) any informality relative to polling districts or polling places. (3) Each of the following is a relevant authority - (a) in relation to England, the council of a district or London borough; (b) in relation to Scotland, a local authority; (c) in relation to Wales, the council of a county or county borough. (4) The following do not apply to Northern Ireland - (a) section 18A (2) to (5); (b) section 18B (2) to (5); (c) sections 18C and 18D, and in Northern Ireland the polling districts and polling places are those for the time being established under the law relating to local elections within the meaning of section 130 of the Electoral Law Act (Northern Ireland) 1962.

Page 45

SCHEDULE A1 (Section 18C)

REVIEW OF POLLING DISTRICTS AND POLLING PLACES

(1) The relevant authority must publish notice of the holding of a review. (2) The authority must consult the returning officer for every parliamentary election held in a constituency which is wholly or partly in its area. (3) (1) every such returning officer must make representations to the authority. (2) The representations must include information as to the location of polling stations (existing or proposed) within polling places (existing or proposed). (3) The representations must be published in such manner as is prescribed. (4) (1) The authority must seek representations from such persons as it thinks have particular expertise in relation to access to premises or facilities for persons who have different forms of disability. (2) Such persons must have an opportunity - (a) To make representations; (b) To comment on the returning officer’s representations. (5) Any elector in a constituency situated in whole or in part in the authority’s area may make representations. (6) Representations made by any person in connection with a review of polling places may include proposals for specified alternative polling places. (7) On completion of a review the authority must - (a) Give reasons for its decisions in the review; (b) Publish such other information as is prescribed.

Page 46 Appendix C

Extract from Statutory Instrument 2006 No. 2965

The Review of Polling Districts and Polling Places (Parliamentary Elections) Regulations 2006 Citation, commencement and extent

1. These Regulations may be cited as the Review of Polling Districts and Polling Places (Parliamentary Elections) Regulations 2006 and shall come into force on 1 January 2007. 2. These Regulations extend to England and Wales and Scotland only.

Manner of publication of representations

3. A relevant authority must, within 30 days of receipt, publish representations made by a returning officer for the purposes of the review of polling districts or polling places - (a) by posting a copy of them at its office and in at least one conspicuous place in their area; and (b) if the authority maintains a website, by placing a copy on the authority's website.

Information to be published on completion of a review

4. On completion of a review the authority must publish the following - (a) all correspondence sent to a returning officer in connection with the review; (b) all correspondence sent to any person whom the authority thinks has particular expertise in relation to access to premises or facilities for persons who have different forms of disability; (c) all representations made by any person in connection with the review; (d) the minutes of any meeting held by the authority to consider any revision to the designation of polling districts or polling places within its area as a result of the review; (e) details of the designation of polling districts or polling places within its area as a result of the review; (f) details of the places where the results of the review have been published.

Page 47 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 48 Description of No. of No. of Situation of each Polling Station 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 voters PO’s PC’s General Local Local Local Euro Loc & Loc & Parl AV Ref

AA1 0001- 1578 1 2 Thrum Hall Methodist Church 915 505 444 NO NO 508 AA2 1579- 2931 1 2 Thrum Hall Lane, Rochdale 752 452 348 INFO INFO 406

AB1 0001- 2288 1 3 Mobile Unit on Chatsworth Street 1040 431 443 482 Rochdale (mobile phone required)

AC1 0001- 1243 1 2 Falinge Park Bowling Club 649 608 322 372 Falinge Park, Heights Lane, Rochdale

AD1 0001- 1607 1 2 Mobile Unit on corner of Bentley Street 845 472 356 442 And Tintern Avenue, Rochdale (mobile phone required)

BA1 0001- 1897 1 3 Newbold Housing Office 724 494 519 535 NO 519 574 (with BB) Witley Road, Rochdale INFO

Page 49 BB1 0001- 1316 1 2 Newbold Housing Office 500 285 284 242 284 317 (with BA) Witley Road, Rochdale

BC1 0001- 1162 1 2 Turf Hill Initiative Centre 481 276 232 249 232 254 Neston Road, Rochdale

BD1 0001- 1225 1 2 Lowerplace Primary School, 534 302 276 304 276 356 Kingsway Entrance, Rochdale

BE1 0001- 1326 1 2 677 370 333 322 333 381 Buersil Bowling Club Crowther Street, Rochdale BF1 0001- 1404 1 2 647 435 413 436 413 487 Belfield Community School Samson Street, Rochdale

E:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\5\8\1\AI00003185\$4oq41a0p.doc

Description of No. of No. of Situation of each Polling Station 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 voters PO’s PC’s General Local Local Local Euro Loc & Loc & Parl AV Ref

CA1 0001- 799 1 1 Deeplish Community Centre 428 389 389 391 NO 389 387 Hare Street, Rochdale INFO

CB1 0001- 1791 1 2 Sudden & Brimrod Community Centre 878 603 600 542 599 572 Cheltenham Street, Rochdale

CC1 0001- 1810 1 2 St Luke’s Church Schoolroom 928 728 825 681 824 723 Salkeld Street, Rochdale (mobile phone required)

CD1 0001- 647 1 1 Sparth Community Centre 331 249 258 241 258 262 Norman Road, Rochdale

Page 50 CE1 0001- 1195 1 2 Ukrainian Cultural Centre, Elmfield House 548 400 396 328 396 351 CE2 1196 - 2483 1 2 Mere Street, Rochdale 614 495 566 488 565 422

CF1 0001- 265 1 1 Champness Hall (Noah’s Ark Children’s Centre) 73 57 49 45 49 45 Drake Street, Rochdale

DA1 0001- 1063 1 2 Trinity Methodist Church 429 223 218 226 NO 218 273 William Henry Street, Rochdale (mobile phone required) INFO

DB1 0001- 1072 1 2 St Thomas’ Church 361 176 171 147 171 177 Gainsborough Drive, Rochdale (mobile phone required)

DC1 0001- 1238 1 2 Kirkholt Community Church (Formerly Methodist Church) 446 178 195 137 193 225 Daventry Road/Rhodes Crescent , Rochdale

DD1 0001- 2056 1 3 Balderstone Library 946 502 467 492 466 493 Balderstone Park, Rochdale

400 250 196 253 195 249 DE1 0001- 655 1 1 Room at rear of St James Church Off Thornham Lane, Rochdale (mobile phone required) 519 212 232 231 232 196 DF1 0001- 1401 1 2 TRAK Office 30 The Strand, Kirkholt, Rochdale

E:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\5\8\1\AI00003185\$4oq41a0p.doc

Description of No. of No. of Situation of each Polling Station 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 voters PO’s PC’s General Local local Local Euro Loc & Loc & Parl AV Ref EA1 0001-2063 1 3 Castleton Community Centre 884 436 445 467 NO 445 565 Manchester Road, Rochdale (mobile phone required) INFO

EB1 0001- 2090 1 3 Matthew Moss Youth Centre 591 583 531 449 531 505 Matthew Moss Lane, Rochdale 542

EC1 0001- 1827 1 3 St Martin’s Church Hall 921 496 460 480 460 539 Vicarage Road North, Rochdale

ED1 0001- 879 1 2 Bowls Pavilion 448 259 230 236 230 252 Chesham Gardens, Rochdale (mobile phone required)

EE1 0001- 428 1 1 Thornham Cricket Club 242 141 146 140 146 155 Rochdale Road, Slattocks, Middleton

Page 51 EF1 0001-447 1 1 Woolworths Sports & Social Club 132 142 Gipsy Lane, Castleton, Rochdale FA1 0001- 456 1 1 731 Rooley Moor Road 283 170 182 186 NO 181 183 Rochdale INFO

FB1 0001- 1229 1 2 Brotherod Tenants' Association 467 194 245 219 245 280 8/10 Daniel Fold, Rochdale

FC1 0001- 893 1 1 Cutgate Methodist Church, Cutgate Precinct 400 189 198 167 197 228 Edenfield Road, Rochdale

FD1 0001- 1986 1 3 Spotland Methodist Church Hall 992 463 409 428 468 541 Rooley Moor Road, Rochdale (mobile phone required)

FE1 0001- 1434 1 2 Greave Community Base 591 282 307 278 306 329 35 Denehurst Road, Rochdale

FF1 0001- 551 1 1 Spotland Community Centre 367 204 257 282 204 215 (with FG) 92/96 Spotland Road, Rochdale

FG1 0001- 881 1 1 Spotland Community Centre 808 553 696 336 687 303 FG2 882-1613 1 1 92/96 Spotland Road, Rochdale (with FF) 292 276

E:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\5\8\1\AI00003185\$4oq41a0p.doc

Description of No. of No. of Situation of each Polling Station 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 voters PO’s PC’s General Local Local Local Euro Loc & Loc & Parl AV Ref

GA1 0001- 1388 1 2 Rochdale Unitarian Church 427 218 224 193 NO 224 224 Clover Street, Rochdale INFO

GB1 0001- 1668 1 3 J D Dance Club (Old Mission) 754 525 509 474 508 557 Milford Street/Whitehall Street, Rochdale

GC1 0001- 1064 1 2 Pennine Suite, St Patrick’s R C Primary School 492 325 313 327 313 334 Foxholes Road, Rochdale

GD1 0001- 1857 1 2 Mobile Unit adjacent to Heybrook CP School 1063 880 978 924 978 810 Park Road, Rochdale (mobile phone required)

Page 52 GE1 0001- 721 1 1 Good Shepherd (Old) Sunday School 580 524 549 476 549 408 Entwisle Road, Rochdale (mobile phone required)

GF1 0001- 1123 1 2 Wardleworth Community Centre 650 596 588 612 588 601 South Street, Rochdale NO HA1 0001-2214 1 3 Brimrod Methodist Church 1052 596 521 510 INFO 520 567 Roch Valley Way, Rochdale (mobile phone required)

HB1 0001- 698 1 1 St George’s Church Hall 290 176 158 193 158 175 Bury Road, Rochdale

HC1 0001- 1527 1 2 Bamford Primary School 850 488 518 557 518 495 HC2 1528- 3085 1 2 Belgium Street, Rochdale 826 485 501 504 499 525

HD1 0001- 1889 1 3 Mobile Unit at Elephant & Castle 1040 673 636 657 636 671 Bury Road, Rochdale (mobile phone required)

E:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\5\8\1\AI00003185\$4oq41a0p.doc

Description of No. of No. of Situation of each Polling Station 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 voters PO’s PC’s General Local Local Local Euro Loc & Loc & Parl AV Ref

IA1 0001- 1053 1 2 Moorhouse Methodist Church 182 164 150 144 NO 150 179 Rochdale Road, Milnrow (mobile phone required) INFO

IB1 0001- 1717 1 2 St Ann’s School (Parish Hall) 665 281 224 249 224 340 Brocklebank Road, Rochdale ( mobile phone required)

IC1 0001- 834 1 1 Meadowfield Community Centre 195 101 160 167 160 224 Eafield Road, Rochdale

ID1 0001- 1314 1 2 Smallbridge Methodist Church 600 453 460 524 459 510 Wesley Close, Rochdale

IE1 0001- 1273 1 2 Smallbridge Tenants’ & Residents’ Association 468 257 263 275 263 326

Page 53 5 Stevenson Square, Rochdale

IF1 0001- 1847 1 3 Mobile Unit on Car Park of Ryefields 672 241 229 248 229 334 (with TD) Braddocks Close, Rochdale (mobile phone required) NO JA1 0001- 2188 1 3 Caldershaw Primary School 960 431 461 575 INFO 460 549 Off Edenfield Road, Rochdale

JB1 0001-2312 1 3 Whittaker Moss C P School (Nursery) 581 716 713 717 713 663 Highwood, Norden, Rochdale 771

JC1 0001- 2821 1 3 Norden Community School 630 374 313 455 312 898 Shawfield Lane, Rochdale 761 449 414 451 415

JD1 0001- 511 1 1 Jericho Methodist Church (mobile phone required) 275 169 173 155 173 153 Bury & Rochdale Old Road, Heywood

E:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\5\8\1\AI00003185\$4oq41a0p.doc

Description of No. of No. of Situation of each Polling Station 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 voters PO’s PC’s General Local Local Local Euro Loc & Loc & Parl AV Ref

KA1 0001-334 1 1 Heap Bridge Social Club 128 55 65 75 NO 65 87 Waterfold Lane, Bury INFO

KB1 0001- 1999 1 3 Heady Hill Community Centre 972 722 683 653 683 427 KB2 2000- 3858 1 2 Whalley Road, Heywood 726 316

KC1 0001- 1611 1 2 Darnhill Library 598 238 257 254 257 291 Argyle Parade, Heywood

KD1 0001- 986 1 2 Heywood & Darnhill Boxing Club, 402 185 161 176 161 179 Argyle Street Heywood

Page 54 KE1 0001- 2050 1 3 Bullough Moor Bowling Club 734 301 295 324 295 361 Regent Street, Heywood (mobile phone required) NO LA1 0001- 1720 1 2 All Souls Church (Parish Room) 784 503 401 418 INFO 401 432 Rochdale Road East, Heywood (mobile phone required)

LB1 0001- 2072 1 3 The Civic Hall 842 413 385 394 385 476 Wood Street, Heywood

LC1 0001- 630 1 1 Crimble Croft Community Centre 293 143 119 126 119 137 Aspinall Street, Heywood

LD1 0001- 1379 1 2 Heywood Sports Village 592 288 274 290 274 328 West Starkey Street, Heywood

LE1 0001- 1008 1 2 Back O’th’ Moss Community Centre 387 185 165 184 165 211 52 Peel Lane, Heywood

LF1 0001- 766 1 1 St James’ Hall (Use side door) 285 137 134 140 134 159 (with MA) Tower Street, Heywood (mobile phone required)

E:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\5\8\1\AI00003185\$4oq41a0p.doc

Description of No. of No. of Situation of each Polling Station 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 voters PO’s PC’s General Local Local Local Euro Loc & Loc & Parl AV Ref NO MA1 0001- 910 1 2 St James’ Hall (Use side door) 303 181 212 192 INFO 211 195 (with LF) Tower Street, Heywood (mobile phone required)

MB1 0001- 2002 1 3 St Johns Church Hall 912 442 473 435 471 531 Manchester Road, Heywood

MC1 0001- 2632 1 3 Hopwood Rec Bowling Club 1236 625 697 655 697 664 Coronation Ave/Manchster Rd, Heywood

MD1 0001- 31 0 0 St Mary’s Church 10 6 6 4 5 7 (With PB) Langley Lane, Birch, Middleton (mobile phone required)

ME1 0001- 2078 1 3 Hollin SureStart Children’s Centre 673 343 364 366 364 396

Page 55 Tintern Road, Middleton

MF1 0001- 833 1 1 Hollin Estate Management Office 366 235 235 236 235 239 48 Nowell Road, Middleton NO NA1 0001- 2165 1 3 Function Room at Lancashire Fold Pub 1154 652 667 580 INFO 667 648 Kirkway, Middleton

NB1 0001- 2347 1 3 Jumbo Social Centre 972 415 467 475 467 535 Grimshaw Lane, Middleton

NC1 0001- 1922 1 3 Brookside Community Centre 831 427 412 390 412 431 Mainway East, Middleton (mobile phone required)

ND1 0001- 1653 1 2 Elm Street Community Centre 643 311 305 283 305 327 Elm Street, Middleton

E:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\5\8\1\AI00003185\$4oq41a0p.doc

Description of No. of No. of Situation of each Polling Station 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 voters PO’s PC’s General Local Local Local Euro Loc & Loc & Parl AV Ref

OA1 0001- 1806 1 3 All Saints’ Church (mobile phone required) 815 466 466 431 NO 466 466 Manchester Old Road, Rhodes, Middleton INFO

OB1 0001- 1270 1 2 Parkfield C P School 563 309 297 309 297 336 Harold Street, Middleton

OC1 0001- 1729 1 3 United Reformed Church 1017 567 543 562 543 610 (With OE) Manchester New Road, Alkrington, Middleton

OD1 0001- 1730 1 3 Alkrington Youth Centre 1062 608 628 644 627 664 Kirkway, Middleton

Page 56 OE1 0001- 1300 1 2 United Reformed Church 758 411 392 379 392 404 (With OC) Manchester New Road, Alkrington, Middleton NO PA1 0001- 147 1 1 St Thomas’ Church 82 55 50 47 INFO 50 62 Ellis Lane, Middleton (mobile phone required)

PB1 0001- 621 1 1 St Mary’s Church 288 152 141 128 141 149 (With MD) Langley Lane, Birch, Middleton (mobile phone required)

PC1 0001- 1609 1 2 Langley Library 349 161 206 195 206 240 Windermere Road, Langley, Middleton

PD1 0001- 1730 1 2 Middleton Community Training Centre 544 207 234 215 234 270 111A Long Street, Middleton (next to the Olde Boars Head)

PE1 0001- 1760 1 2 Demesne Community Centre 498 231 298 218 298 275 Asby Close, Middleton

PF1 0001- 2683 1 3 Burnside Youth & Community Centre 445 329 403 309 403 435 38 Burnside Crescent, Langley, Middleton 387

E:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\5\8\1\AI00003185\$4oq41a0p.doc

Description of No. of No. of Situation of each Polling Station 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 voters PO’s PC’s General Local Local Local Euro Loc & Loc & Parl AV Ref

QA1 0001- 563 1 1 Cleworth Road Children’s Activity Centre 367 195 196 177 NO 196 213 Cleworth Road, Middleton INFO

QB1 0001- 1117 1 2 St Stephen’s Church Hall 617 266 247 203 247 251 High Street, Middleton (mobile phone required)

QC1 0001- 898 1 2 The Old Grammar School 355 148 134 135 134 170 Boarshaw Road, Middleton

QD1 0001- 1979 1 3 Stanycliffe Social Centre 912 608 582 581 582 454 QD2 1980- 3556 1 2 Stanycliffe Lane, Middleton 721 321

QE1 0001- 1599 1 2 Mobile unit on corner of James Andrew Street 596 285 205 167 205 297

Page 57 And Oldham Road, Middleton (mobile phone required)

QF1 0001- 274 1 1 Mobile unit on car park at front of Middleton Arena 32 61 Corporation Street, Middleton (mobile phone required)

NO RA1 0001- 747 1 1 The Coach House 406 198 174 185 INFO 174 178 Victoria Street, Littleborough

RB1 0001- 1264 1 2 Littleborough Community School (Info Room) 662 316 326 293 326 328 (with TA) Calderbrook Road, Littleborough

RC1 0001- 1257 1 2 Stansfield Hall Primary School 564 265 245 278 245 252 Barnes Meadows, Littleborough

RD1 0001- 1853 1 3 United Reformed Church 937 435 442 470 442 524 Victoria Street, Littleborough (mobile phone required)

RE1 0001- 1346 1 2 Smithy Bridge Methodist Church Hall 811 788 684 742 684 424 RE2 1347- 2686 1 2 Smithybridge Road, Littleborough (mobile phone required) 751

RF1 0001- 45 0 0 Smithy Bridge Methodist Church Hall 182 (With RE) Smithybridge Road, Littleborough

E:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\5\8\1\AI00003185\$4oq41a0p.doc

Description of No. of No. of Situation of each Polling Station 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 voters PO’s PC’s General Local Local Local Euro Loc & Loc & Parl AV Ref

SA1 0001- 1020 1 2 Milnrow Cricket Club 551 147 119 158 NO 119 184 (With SB) Harbour Lane, Milnrow INFO

SB1 0001- 1216 1 2 Milnrow Cricket Club 552 298 305 313 305 358 (with SA) Harbour Lane, Milnrow (mobile phone required)

SC1 0001- 1781 1 3 Butterworth Hall Community Centre 1696 800 739 806 739 455 SC2 1782- 3339 1 2 22 New Street, Milnrow (mobile phone required) 426

SD1 0001- 2431 1 3 Mobile unit on car park of Ogden Baptist Church 1079 541 504 504 504 538 Cedar Lane, Newhey NO Page 58 TA1 0001- 986 1 2 Littleborough Community School (Info Room) 524 237 200 211 INFO 200 216 (with RB) Calderbrook Road, Littleborough

TB1 0001- 1345 1 2 Dearnley Spiritualist Church 674 287 272 347 272 316 (With TE) 14/16 New Road, Littleborough (mobile phone required)

TC1 0001- 1078 1 2 Wardle Library 1141 649 643 657 643 338 TC2 1079- 2121 1 2 Ramsden Road/Birch Road, Wardle 274

TD1 0001- 2431 1 3 Mobile Unit on Car Park of Ryefields 695 312 284 357 284 378 (With IF) Braddocks Close, Rochdale (mobile phone required)

TE1 0001- 1468 1 2 Dearnley Spiritualist Church 816 451 439 525 439 456 (With TB) 14/16 New Road, Littleborough (mobile phone required)

E:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\5\8\1\AI00003185\$4oq41a0p.doc Elector Stttc  reStreet

including other electors Printed: 28 June 2011 o e Elector Street etl  !rt ##e# to elete#( rre't  !rt ##e# to elete# &&lc't ( rre't  l"e# $e%ter  l"e# $e%ter e'#'%

DA - ANNE LINE CLOSE 7 0 0 7 16 0 0 0 16 DEANCOURT 41 0 0 41 99 0 1 (1.01%) 0 98 (-1.01%) DENHOLME ROAD 21 0 0 21 35 0 0 0 35 DENVER ROAD 23 0 0 23 51 0 1 (1.96%) 0 50 (-1.96%) DICKEN GREEN LANE 4 0 0 4 7 0 0 0 7 STONEYVALE COURT, DICKEN 73 0 0 73 102 1 (0.98%) 0 0 103 (0.98%) GREEN LANE DICKEN GREEN 24 0 0 24 35 0 2 (5.71%) 0 33 (-5.71%) DIGBY ROAD 34 0 0 34 70 0 0 0 70 DUNLOP AVENUE 34 0 0 34 59 0 0 0 59 EDINBURGH WAY 10 0 0 10 14 0 2 (14.29%) 0 12 (-14.29%) GREEN BRIDGE CLOSE 30 0 0 30 44 1 (2.27%) 0 0 45 (2.27%) Page 59 HARTLEY LANE 17 0 0 17 28 0 0 0 28 HURST STREET 13 0 0 13 13 0 1 (7.69%) 0 12 (-7.69%) LABURNUM TERRACE 8 0 0 8 16 0 0 0 16 LOWTHER ROAD 42 0 0 42 69 2 (2.90%) 1 (1.45%) 0 70 (1.45%) MARGARET WARD COURT 30 0 0 30 32 0 0 0 32 OLDHAM ROAD 17 0 0 17 24 0 0 0 24 OTHER ELECTORS 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 IAN FRASER COURT, QUEENSWAY 38 0 0 38 43 0 1 (2.33%) 0 42 (-2.33%) QUEENSWAY 59 0 0 59 120 0 0 0 120 SCHOFIELD STREET 13 0 0 13 19 0 0 0 19 WELL I'TH' LANE 37 0 0 37 65 3 (4.62%) 6 (9.23%) 0 62 (-4.62%) WELL STREET 28 0 0 28 48 0 0 0 48 WELLFIELD MEWS 4 0 0 4 5 0 0 0 5 WELLFIELD PLACE 11 0 0 11 27 0 2 (7.41%) 0 25 (-7.41%) WELLFIELD STREET 15 0 0 15 19 1 (5.26%) 2 (10.53%) 1 18 (-5.26%) WILLIAM HENRY STREET 2 0 0 2 3 0 0 0 3 6otl 7or 8  9 232 ) ) 232 01)23 5 B)CF@DE 04 B0CF4DE 0 01)@A B90C)3DE

DB - ALDWYCH 30 0 0 30 43 0 3 (6.98%) 0 40 (-6.98%) ARKWRIGHT WAY 6 0 0 6 8 0 0 0 8 BALDERSTONE ROAD 52 0 0 52 73 0 2 (2.74%) 0 71 (-2.74%)

ELECSTAT - Elector Statistics by Area/PD/Street Page: 1 Elector Stttc  reStreet

including other electors Printed: 28 June 2011 o e Elector Street etl  !rt ##e# to elete#( rre't  !rt ##e# to elete# &&lc't ( rre't  l"e# $e%ter  l"e# $e%ter e'#'%

DB - CHURCH WALK NURSING HOME, 18 0 0 18 0 0 0 0 0 CAVENDISH ROAD CAVENDISH ROAD 53 0 0 53 93 1 (1.08%) 1 (1.08%) 0 93 CUMBERLAND ROAD 34 0 0 34 50 0 1 (2.00%) 0 49 (-2.00%) CURZON ROAD 64 0 0 64 88 1 (1.14%) 1 (1.14%) 0 88 DAVENTRY ROAD 69 0 0 69 72 0 0 0 72 DOBBIN DRIVE 34 0 0 34 55 0 0 0 55 GAINSBOROUGH DRIVE 8 0 0 8 13 0 1 (7.69%) 0 12 (-7.69%) GISBURN DRIVE 22 0 0 22 27 0 0 0 27 GLADSTONE CRESCENT 36 0 0 36 42 0 1 (2.38%) 0 41 (-2.38%) GREAT GATES ROAD 69 0 0 69 89 1 (1.12%) 2 (2.25%) 0 88 (-1.12%) Page 60 HILL TOP DRIVE 70 0 0 70 123 0 1 (0.81%) 0 122 (-0.81%) HOGARTH ROAD 8 0 0 8 11 0 0 0 11 KEW ROAD 4 0 0 4 8 0 0 0 8 KIRKWAY 52 0 0 52 77 0 3 (3.90%) 0 74 (-3.90%) MORNINGTON ROAD 57 0 0 57 80 0 1 (1.25%) 0 79 (-1.25%) OTHER ELECTORS 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 RHODES CRESCENT 12 0 0 12 13 0 2 (15.38%) 0 11 (-15.38%) ROMNEY AVENUE 12 0 0 12 18 0 0 0 18 RUSKIN ROAD 14 0 0 14 25 0 0 0 25 TAVISTOCK ROAD 29 0 0 29 42 0 0 0 42 THE STRAND 25 0 0 25 22 0 1 (4.55%) 0 21 (-4.55%) 6otl 7or 8 G 9 FF4 ) ) FF4 01)FA 3 B)CA5DE A) B0C5FDE ) 01)@@ B90C@4DE

DC - CAVENDISH ROAD 12 0 0 12 19 0 0 0 19 DACRE ROAD 15 0 0 15 24 0 0 0 24 DALMENY TERRACE 10 0 0 10 24 0 0 0 24 DARLEY ROAD 38 0 0 38 69 1 (1.45%) 2 (2.90%) 0 68 (-1.45%) DARLINGTON ROAD 66 0 0 66 115 0 4 (3.48%) 0 111 (-3.48%) DATCHET TERRACE 14 0 0 14 25 0 0 0 25 DAVENTRY ROAD 86 0 0 86 169 0 5 (2.96%) 0 164 (-2.96%) DAVENTRY WAY 8 0 0 8 11 1 (9.09%) 0 0 12 (9.09%) GAINSBOROUGH DRIVE 82 0 0 82 136 0 0 0 136 GREAT GATES CLOSE 17 0 0 17 30 0 0 0 30

ELECSTAT - Elector Statistics by Area/PD/Street Page: 2 Elector Stttc  reStreet

including other electors Printed: 28 June 2011 o e Elector Street etl  !rt ##e# to elete#( rre't  !rt ##e# to elete# &&lc't ( rre't  l"e# $e%ter  l"e# $e%ter e'#'%

DC - GREAT GATES ROAD 33 0 0 33 61 0 2 (3.28%) 0 59 (-3.28%) HARDY CLOSE 19 0 0 19 37 0 0 0 37 HARTLEY LANE 47 0 0 47 83 2 (2.41%) 1 (1.20%) 0 84 (1.20%) HARTLEY TERRACE 8 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 HOGARTH ROAD 8 0 0 8 13 0 1 (7.69%) 0 12 (-7.69%) MOORCROFT 18 0 0 18 29 0 0 0 29 MOORSIDE 34 0 0 34 69 0 3 (4.35%) 0 66 (-4.35%) OTHER ELECTORS 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 QUEEN VICTORIA STREET 6 0 0 6 8 0 0 0 8 QUEENS DRIVE 45 0 0 45 55 0 1 (1.82%) 0 54 (-1.82%) QUEENSWAY 47 0 0 47 100 0 0 0 100 RHODES CRESCENT 79 0 0 79 160 2 (1.25%) 4 (2.50%) 0 158 (-1.25%) Page 61 6otl 7or 8 ( 9 243 ) ) 243 01A35 2 B)CH5DE A3 B0C52DE ) 01AA0 B90C3FDE

DD - ARNOLD BAGNALL COURT 30 0 0 30 31 0 1 (3.23%) 0 30 (-3.23%) BADGER CLOSE 23 0 0 23 56 0 0 0 56 BADGER LANE 6 0 0 6 10 0 0 0 10 BALDERSTONE ROAD 20 0 0 20 30 0 1 (3.33%) 0 29 (-3.33%) BLACKCHAPEL DRIVE 17 0 0 17 42 0 0 0 42 CHAPEL ROW, BROAD LANE, 8 0 0 8 16 0 0 0 16 BURNEDGE BROAD LANE, BURNEDGE 58 0 0 58 95 0 0 0 95 WHITE HORSE MEADOW, BROAD 3 0 0 3 10 0 0 0 10 LANE, BURNEDGE BROAD LANE 32 0 0 32 56 0 0 0 56 SPRING HILL RESOURCE CENTRE, 1 0 0 1 2 0 1 (50.00%) 0 1 (-50.00%) BROAD LANE BROCKWAY 15 0 0 15 37 0 0 0 37 BROW STREET 4 0 0 4 4 0 0 0 4 BURLINGTON STREET 7 0 0 7 12 0 0 0 12 CALF HEY HOUSE, CALF HEY SOUTH 3 0 1(33.33%) 2 6 0 2 (33.33%) 0 4 (-33.33%) CANBERRA WAY 70 0 0 70 93 1 (1.08%) 9 (9.68%) 0 85 (-8.60%) CLEVELEYS AVENUE 29 0 0 29 54 0 0 0 54 KENSINGTON PLACE, CONNAUGHT 15 0 0 15 15 2 (13.33%) 0 0 17 (13.33%) AVENUE

ELECSTAT - Elector Statistics by Area/PD/Street Page: 3 Elector Stttc  reStreet

including other electors Printed: 28 June 2011 o e Elector Street etl  !rt ##e# to elete#( rre't  !rt ##e# to elete# &&lc't ( rre't  l"e# $e%ter  l"e# $e%ter e'#'%

DD - CONNAUGHT AVENUE 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 CRAIGLANDS 85 0 0 85 180 0 3 (1.67%) 0 177 (-1.67%) CROMPTON AVENUE 23 0 0 23 50 0 0 0 50 CULVERT STREET 18 0 0 18 25 0 0 0 25 DODD CROFT 6 0 0 6 13 3 (23.08%) 0 0 16 (23.08%) FAIRLANDS STREET 5 0 0 5 5 0 0 1 5 FAIRLANDS VIEW 9 0 0 9 9 0 0 0 9 FARLANDS RISE 8 0 0 8 16 0 0 0 16 FIELDWAY 52 0 0 52 61 0 4 (6.56%) 0 57 (-6.56%) GILBROOK WAY 37 0 0 37 74 0 0 0 74 GREENFIELD STREET 21 0 0 21 30 0 1 (3.33%) 0 29 (-3.33%) Page 62 HARVARD STREET 17 0 0 17 28 0 0 0 28 HOLLY STREET 3 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 3 HORNET CLOSE 24 0 0 24 35 0 1 (2.86%) 0 34 (-2.86%) HURST MEADOW 29 0 0 29 62 3 (4.84%) 1 (1.61%) 0 64 (3.23%) MAY PLACE 2 0 0 2 3 0 0 0 3 MEADOWFIELD 9 0 0 9 22 0 0 0 22 MELBOURNE CLOSE 42 0 0 42 85 0 0 0 85 MIDGLEY DRIVE 23 0 0 23 51 0 0 0 51 MILNGATE CLOSE 7 0 0 7 22 0 0 0 22 NALL GATE 16 0 0 16 40 0 0 0 40 NEW BROAD LANE 1 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 3 BROADVIEW COURT, OFF BROAD 20 0 0 20 27 1 (3.70%) 4 (14.81%) 0 24 (-11.11%) LANE OLDHAM ROAD 135 0 0 135 240 0 3 (1.25%) 0 237 (-1.25%) OTHER ELECTORS 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 2 PARKFIELD CLOSE 4 0 0 4 9 0 0 0 9 PARKFIELD STREET 5 0 0 5 6 0 0 0 6 PERTH ROAD 72 0 0 72 89 0 3 (3.37%) 0 86 (-3.37%) PLATTING LANE 24 0 0 24 35 0 1 (2.86%) 0 34 (-2.86%) QUEEN VICTORIA STREET 29 0 0 29 41 0 0 0 41 ROCHDALE ROAD, BURNEDGE 7 0 0 7 14 0 0 0 14 SEYMOUR GROVE 19 0 0 19 42 0 0 0 42 SUNHILL CLOSE 31 0 0 31 65 0 2 (3.08%) 0 63 (-3.08%) TURN HILL ROAD 5 0 0 5 13 0 0 0 13

ELECSTAT - Elector Statistics by Area/PD/Street Page: 4 Elector Stttc  reStreet

including other electors Printed: 28 June 2011 o e Elector Street etl  !rt ##e# to elete#( rre't  !rt ##e# to elete# &&lc't ( rre't  l"e# $e%ter  l"e# $e%ter e'#'%

DD - VERDANT WAY 16 0 0 16 43 0 1 (2.33%) 0 42 (-2.33%) WADDINGTON FOLD 9 0 0 9 22 0 0 0 22 WASP AVENUE 12 0 0 12 16 1 (6.25%) 1 (6.25%) 0 16 WELL I'TH' LANE 4 0 0 4 6 0 0 0 6 6otl 7or 8  9 010FA ) 0 B)C)4DE 010F0 A1)@2 00 B)C@HDE 34 B0C4)DE 0 A1)A5 B90C32DE

DE - ASH GROVE 8 0 0 8 17 0 0 0 17 CLIFTONVILLE ROAD 29 0 0 29 49 0 1 (2.04%) 0 48 (-2.04%) COLLIER'S COURT 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 2 DEAN BANK DRIVE 7 0 0 7 22 2 (9.09%) 0 0 24 (9.09%) FERNDALE AVENUE 16 0 0 16 36 0 0 0 36

Page 63 KENILWORTH ROAD 18 0 0 18 37 0 0 0 37 LANGDALE AVENUE 4 0 0 4 8 0 0 0 8 MARSDEN CLOSE 12 0 0 12 20 0 0 0 20 OLDHAM ROAD 133 0 0 133 262 0 1 (0.38%) 0 261 (-0.38%) OTHER ELECTORS 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 PIT LANE 1 0 0 1 2 1 (50.00%) 0 0 3 (50.00%) SHAW ROAD 56 0 0 56 116 1 (0.86%) 1 (0.86%) 0 116 ST JAMES CLOSE 14 0 0 14 29 0 0 0 29 TANDLE HILL TERRACE 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 THORNHAM COURT 7 0 0 7 6 0 0 0 6 THORNHAM LANE 15 0 0 15 34 0 0 0 34 THORNHAM NEW ROAD 5 0 0 5 7 0 0 0 7 YEW TREE CLOSE 3 0 0 3 7 0 0 0 7 6otl 7or 8 E 9 330 ) ) 330 2@@ H B)C20DE 3 B)CH2DE ) 2@2 B)C0@DE

DF - ARKWRIGHT WAY 8 0 0 8 12 0 0 0 12 BALDERSTONE ROAD 49 0 0 49 77 0 5 (6.49%) 0 72 (-6.49%) CAESAR STREET 44 0 0 44 67 0 3 (4.48%) 0 64 (-4.48%) CUMBERLAND ROAD 40 0 0 40 26 0 0 0 26 CURZON CLOSE 19 0 0 19 24 0 1 (4.17%) 0 23 (-4.17%) CURZON ROAD 38 0 0 38 35 0 2 (5.71%) 0 33 (-5.71%) DEVONSHIRE ROAD 32 0 0 32 46 4 (8.70%) 4 (8.70%) 0 46

ELECSTAT - Elector Statistics by Area/PD/Street Page: 5 Elector Stttc  reStreet

including other electors Printed: 28 June 2011 o e Elector Street etl  !rt ##e# to elete#( rre't  !rt ##e# to elete# &&lc't ( rre't  l"e# $e%ter  l"e# $e%ter e'#'%

DF - EVEREST STREET 19 0 0 19 34 0 0 0 34 FRIARS CRESCENT 72 0 0 72 106 0 3 (2.83%) 0 103 (-2.83%) GERRARD STREET 45 0 0 45 78 0 1 (1.28%) 0 77 (-1.28%) GREAT GATES ROAD 45 0 0 45 51 0 5 (9.80%) 0 46 (-9.80%) HILL TOP DRIVE 263 0 0 263 383 0 7 (1.83%) 0 376 (-1.83%) KILDARE CRESCENT 104 0 0 104 156 0 1 (0.64%) 0 155 (-0.64%) LILAC ROAD 4 0 0 4 11 0 3 (27.27%) 0 8 (-27.27%) LUDGATE ROAD 48 0 0 48 71 0 2 (2.82%) 0 69 (-2.82%) MELBOURNE ROAD 12 0 0 12 21 0 0 0 21 NEVIS STREET 32 0 0 32 35 0 2 (5.71%) 0 33 (-5.71%) OTHER ELECTORS 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 Page 64 RANELEY GROVE 30 0 0 30 44 0 1 (2.27%) 0 43 (-2.27%) RUDYARD GROVE 24 0 0 24 34 0 1 (2.94%) 0 33 (-2.94%) RUSKIN ROAD 14 0 0 14 23 0 2 (8.70%) 0 21 (-8.70%) SNOWDON STREET 26 0 0 26 42 0 1 (2.38%) 0 41 (-2.38%) TELFORD WAY 14 0 0 14 24 0 2 (8.33%) 0 22 (-8.33%) 6otl 7or 8 ! 9 453 ) ) 453 01H)0 H B)CA4DE H2 B3CA5DE ) 013@4 B93C))DE GIE$S6PQE Q RS$RPI6 H1@4H ) 0B)C)ADE H1@43 F1H5@ 32 B)CH5DE 0@) BAC))DE A F13F0 B90C@ADE

ELECSTAT - Elector Statistics by Area/PD/Street Page: 6 Elector Stttc  reStreet

including other electors Printed: 28 June 2011 o e Elector Street etl  !rt ##e# to elete#( rre't  !rt ##e# to elete# &&lc't ( rre't  l"e# $e%ter  l"e# $e%ter e'#'%

HA - ARBURY AVENUE 1 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 3 BIRCHFIELD DRIVE 65 0 0 65 129 0 0 0 129 BLACKSMITH LANE 7 0 0 7 22 0 0 0 22 BOLTON ROAD 71 0 0 71 112 0 3 (2.68%) 0 109 (-2.68%) BRIMROD LANE 56 0 0 56 90 0 0 0 90 BURNABY STREET 4 0 0 4 9 0 0 0 9 CONVENT GROVE 12 0 0 12 25 2 (8.00%) 0 0 27 (8.00%) DERRICK WALKER COURT 28 0 0 28 30 0 2 (6.67%) 0 28 (-6.67%) DISLEY STREET 26 0 0 26 40 0 0 0 40 FARRIERS LANE 16 0 0 16 35 0 0 0 35 FINSBURY STREET 27 0 0 27 37 0 0 0 37 HOLBORN GARDENS 6 0 0 6 9 0 0 0 9 Page 65 HOLBORN SQUARE 10 0 0 10 17 0 0 0 17 HOLBORN STREET 160 0 0 160 256 1 (0.39%) 4 (1.56%) 1 253 (-1.17%) JOHNSON STREET 2 0 0 2 3 0 0 0 3 KEMP AVENUE 11 0 0 11 19 0 2 (10.53%) 0 17 (-10.53%) LAMBETH TERRACE 6 0 0 6 7 0 0 0 7 LAW STREET 33 0 0 33 46 0 0 0 46 LIME STREET 8 0 0 8 13 2 (15.38%) 0 0 15 (15.38%) LOWER BEECHWOOD 10 0 0 10 24 0 0 0 24 JOHN KEMBLE COURT, 18 0 0 18 20 0 0 0 20 MANCHESTER ROAD LAURISTON, MANCHESTER ROAD 1 0 0 1 5 0 0 0 5 MANCHESTER ROAD 91 0 0 91 135 1 (0.74%) 0 0 136 (0.74%) MARLAND CLOSE 14 0 0 14 22 0 0 0 22 MARLAND FOLD 86 0 0 86 176 0 0 0 176 MARLAND GREEN 3 0 0 3 4 0 0 0 4 MARLAND HILL ROAD 72 0 0 72 141 0 3 (2.13%) 0 138 (-2.13%) MARLAND MILL FARM 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 2 MARLAND MILL HOUSE 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 2 BRANKSOME, MARLAND OLD ROAD 1 0 0 1 19 1 (5.26%) 1 (5.26%) 0 19 MARLAND OLD ROAD 30 0 0 30 58 0 0 0 58 MARLAND RISE 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 2 MAYFAIR GARDENS 30 0 0 30 50 0 0 0 50 OTHER ELECTORS 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0

ELECSTAT - Elector Statistics by Area/PD/Street Page: 7 Elector Stttc  reStreet

including other electors Printed: 28 June 2011 o e Elector Street etl  !rt ##e# to elete#( rre't  !rt ##e# to elete# &&lc't ( rre't  l"e# $e%ter  l"e# $e%ter e'#'%

HA - PALLOTINE WALK 6 0 0 6 17 0 0 0 17 PERRY CLOSE 14 0 0 14 19 0 0 0 19 ROCH MILLS CRESCENT 58 0 0 58 84 0 1 (1.19%) 0 83 (-1.19%) ROCH MILLS GARDENS 12 0 0 12 16 0 0 0 16 LAUREL GROVE NURSING HOME, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ROCH VALLEY WAY ROCH VALLEY WAY 51 0 0 51 97 0 1 (1.03%) 0 96 (-1.03%) ROUSE STREET 39 0 0 39 72 0 0 0 72 SOUTHDOWN CLOSE 37 0 0 37 68 0 0 0 68 SPRINGFIELD COTTAGES 4 0 0 4 7 0 0 0 7 NURSING HOME, BOLTON ROAD, 1 0 0 1 62 0 5 (8.06%) 0 57 (-8.06%) Page 66 SPRINGFIELD PARK SPRINGFIELD PARK 2 0 0 2 6 0 0 0 6 ST AIDANS CLOSE 28 0 0 28 47 0 1 (2.13%) 0 46 (-2.13%) SUDDEN STREET 3 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 3 SUDLEY ROAD 24 0 0 24 36 0 0 0 36 THOMAS HENSHAW COURT 26 0 0 26 30 0 1 (3.33%) 0 29 (-3.33%) UTTLEY STREET 4 0 0 4 8 0 0 0 8 WESTMINSTER STREET 35 0 0 35 48 0 0 0 48 WHEELWRIGHT CLOSE 6 0 0 6 10 0 0 0 10 WIMBLEDON DRIVE 12 0 0 12 22 0 1 (4.55%) 0 21 (-4.55%) 6otl 7or 8  9 01AF0 ) ) 01AF0 A1A0H F B)C3ADE A@ B0C03DE 0 A1042 B9)C50DE

HB - BROOKLANDS COURT 24 0 0 24 82 0 0 0 82 OAKLAND PRIVATE NURSING HOME, 1 0 0 1 40 0 5 (12.50%) 0 35 (-12.50%) BURY ROAD BURY ROAD 115 0 0 115 210 2 (0.95%) 1 (0.48%) 0 211 (0.48%) PEGASUS COURT, BURY ROAD 61 0 0 61 58 0 0 0 58 CHADWICK STREET 16 0 0 16 22 0 1 (4.55%) 0 21 (-4.55%) CROWNEAST STREET 30 0 0 30 38 1 (2.63%) 0 0 39 (2.63%) DOVE STREET 5 0 0 5 6 0 0 0 6 GLENCOE PLACE 9 0 0 9 16 0 0 0 16 HALF ACRE DRIVE 8 0 0 8 18 0 0 0 18 LEOPOLD STREET 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 LINNET HILL 29 0 0 29 51 0 1 (1.96%) 0 50 (-1.96%)

ELECSTAT - Elector Statistics by Area/PD/Street Page: 8 Elector Stttc  reStreet

including other electors Printed: 28 June 2011 o e Elector Street etl  !rt ##e# to elete#( rre't  !rt ##e# to elete# &&lc't ( rre't  l"e# $e%ter  l"e# $e%ter e'#'%

HB - MALVERN STREET EAST 16 0 0 16 24 0 0 0 24 MALVERN STREET WEST 30 0 0 30 39 0 0 0 39 OAKENROD HALL 4 0 0 4 7 0 0 0 7 OAKENROD HILL 15 0 0 15 27 0 0 0 27 OTHER ELECTORS 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 HALF ACRE HOUSE H.F.E., ROCH 1 0 0 1 23 0 3 (13.04%) 0 20 (-13.04%) VALLEY WAY ROSSMERE AVENUE 13 0 0 13 37 0 1 (2.70%) 0 36 (-2.70%) 6otl 7or 8 G 9 3F4 ) ) 3F4 245 3 B)CH3DE 0A B0CFADE ) 254 B90CA4DE

HC - AINTREE DRIVE 9 0 0 9 26 0 0 0 26

Page 67 ARNSIDE DRIVE 24 0 0 24 45 0 0 0 45 ASCOT CLOSE 8 0 0 8 12 0 0 0 12 BAGSLATE MOOR ROAD 6 0 0 6 16 0 0 0 16 WILLOW BANK, BAGSLATE MOOR 2 0 0 2 6 0 0 0 6 ROAD BAMFORD WAY 42 0 0 42 119 0 1 (0.84%) 0 118 (-0.84%) BEECHFIELD CLOSE 14 0 0 14 27 0 0 0 27 BEECHFIELD 13 0 0 13 24 0 0 0 24 BELGIUM STREET 8 0 0 8 10 1 (10.00%) 0 0 11 (10.00%) BELL MEADOW DRIVE 9 0 0 9 17 0 2 (11.76%) 0 15 (-11.76%) BITTERN CLOSE 17 0 0 17 48 1 (2.08%) 0 0 49 (2.08%) BOWLING GREEN WAY 12 0 0 12 37 2 (5.41%) 0 0 39 (5.41%) BRAMLEY ROAD 21 0 0 21 41 0 0 0 41 BROADOAK ROAD 17 0 0 17 31 0 0 0 31 BURNTHORPE CLOSE 6 0 0 6 8 0 0 0 8 BURY AND ROCHDALE OLD ROAD 8 0 0 8 19 0 0 0 19 BURY ROAD 57 0 0 57 92 2 (2.17%) 2 (2.17%) 0 92 BYRON GROVE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CAIRN DRIVE 9 0 0 9 16 0 1 (6.25%) 0 15 (-6.25%) CAITHNESS ROAD 18 0 0 18 32 0 0 0 32 CHEPSTOW CLOSE 14 0 0 14 30 0 0 0 30 NORDEN LODGE, CLAY LANE 18 0 0 18 20 0 0 0 20 CLAY LANE 15 0 0 15 27 0 0 0 27

ELECSTAT - Elector Statistics by Area/PD/Street Page: 9 Elector Stttc  reStreet

including other electors Printed: 28 June 2011 o e Elector Street etl  !rt ##e# to elete#( rre't  !rt ##e# to elete# &&lc't ( rre't  l"e# $e%ter  l"e# $e%ter e'#'%

HC - COACH LANE 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 CRANBOURNE ROAD 27 0 0 27 55 0 2 (3.64%) 0 53 (-3.64%) CURLEW CLOSE 18 0 0 18 40 0 0 0 40 DIXON CLOSES 5 0 0 5 8 0 0 0 8 DIXON FOLD 6 0 0 6 13 0 0 0 13 DUNLIN CLOSE 11 0 0 11 33 0 0 0 33 EDGEMOOR DRIVE 11 0 0 11 21 0 0 0 21 EPSOM CLOSE 13 0 0 13 29 2 (6.90%) 2 (6.90%) 0 29 FULMAR GARDENS 10 0 0 10 26 0 0 0 26 FUR BARN LANE 4 0 0 4 9 0 0 0 9 FURBARN ROAD 5 0 0 5 17 0 0 0 17 Page 68 GLENMORE CLOSE 7 0 2(28.57%) 5 11 0 1 (9.09%) 0 10 (-9.09%) GNAT BANK FOLD 8 0 0 8 17 0 0 0 17 GREENSHANK CLOSE 18 0 0 18 42 0 0 0 42 GREENVALE 51 0 0 51 101 2 (1.98%) 2 (1.98%) 0 101 GREENWICH CLOSE 15 0 0 15 39 0 0 0 39 HAWTHORN ROAD 42 0 0 42 110 0 0 0 110 HIGHLANDS ROAD 26 0 0 26 47 0 0 0 47 HINTON CLOSE 16 0 0 16 22 0 0 0 22 HOLLIN LANE 8 0 0 8 10 0 0 0 10 TOP O'TH'LANE, HOLLIN LANE 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 2 HOPWOOD FARM, BAMFORD 1 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 3 KENYON FOLD 10 0 0 10 15 0 0 0 15 LAPWING CLOSE 7 0 0 7 14 2 (14.29%) 0 0 16 (14.29%) LINNELL DRIVE 22 0 0 22 51 0 0 0 51 MANSFIELD ROAD 38 0 0 38 55 0 2 (3.64%) 0 53 (-3.64%) MURRAYFIELD 20 0 0 20 33 0 1 (3.03%) 0 32 (-3.03%) BAMFORD MEWS, NORDEN ROAD 32 0 0 32 47 0 4 (8.51%) 0 43 (-8.51%) BURNS COURT, NORDEN ROAD 15 0 0 15 26 0 2 (7.69%) 0 24 (-7.69%) NORDEN ROAD 117 0 0 117 186 1 (0.54%) 0 0 187 (0.54%) NORFORD WAY 48 0 0 48 100 0 1 (1.00%) 0 99 (-1.00%) NORTHDENE DRIVE 11 0 0 11 21 0 0 0 21 OTHER ELECTORS 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 PARTRIDGE CLOSE 11 0 0 11 17 0 0 0 17

ELECSTAT - Elector Statistics by Area/PD/Street Page: 10 Elector Stttc  reStreet

including other electors Printed: 28 June 2011 o e Elector Street etl  !rt ##e# to elete#( rre't  !rt ##e# to elete# &&lc't ( rre't  l"e# $e%ter  l"e# $e%ter e'#'%

HC - PETREL CLOSE 26 0 0 26 62 0 1 (1.61%) 0 61 (-1.61%) PLOVER CLOSE 50 0 0 50 115 0 0 0 115 PORRITT CLOSE 28 0 0 28 43 0 2 (4.65%) 0 41 (-4.65%) ROCHBURY CLOSE 14 0 0 14 31 0 0 0 31 RYBURN SQUARE 4 0 0 4 6 0 0 0 6 SAND HOLE LANE 9 0 0 9 15 0 0 0 15 SANDPIPER CLOSE 17 0 0 17 38 0 0 0 38 SOUTH VIEW 27 0 0 27 39 0 0 0 39 SPENCER LANE 31 0 0 31 51 1 (1.96%) 1 (1.96%) 0 51 SPRING BANK LANE 28 0 0 28 73 0 2 (2.74%) 0 71 (-2.74%) SPRINGS 5 0 0 5 6 0 0 0 6 SWALLOW DRIVE 21 0 0 21 35 0 1 (2.86%) 0 34 (-2.86%) Page 69 SWIFT ROAD 19 0 0 19 34 0 0 0 34 TEAL COURT 4 0 0 4 9 0 0 0 9 TERN CLOSE 12 0 0 12 27 0 0 0 27 TYRONE DRIVE 45 0 0 45 95 0 1 (1.05%) 0 94 (-1.05%) WAR OFFICE ROAD 63 0 0 63 119 0 0 0 119 WINSFORD DRIVE 15 0 0 15 28 0 0 0 28 WINSTON AVENUE 25 0 0 25 55 0 0 0 55 WOODCOCK CLOSE 30 0 0 30 69 0 0 0 69 WOODTOP AVENUE 39 0 0 39 72 0 0 0 72 WORDSWORTH WAY 58 0 0 58 138 0 2 (1.45%) 0 136 (-1.45%) 6otl 7or 8 ( 9 01@@3 ) A B)C03DE 01@@0 31)5@ 0H B)CH@DE 33 B0C)FDE ) 31)22 B9)C2ADE

HD - BAMFORD WAY 21 0 0 21 75 0 0 0 75 BATTERSBY STREET 19 0 0 19 36 0 0 0 36 BEAUMONDS WAY 13 0 0 13 32 0 0 0 32 BEAUMONDS 4 0 0 4 5 2 (40.00%) 0 0 7 (40.00%) BROADHALGH AVENUE 23 0 0 23 44 0 1 (2.27%) 0 43 (-2.27%) BROADHALGH ROAD 13 0 0 13 27 0 0 0 27 BROADHALGH 15 0 0 15 35 0 0 0 35 BURY ROAD 128 0 0 128 250 0 1 (0.40%) 0 249 (-0.40%) RYEFIELDS, BURY ROAD 4 0 0 4 11 0 0 0 11 BYRON GROVE 5 0 0 5 9 0 0 0 9

ELECSTAT - Elector Statistics by Area/PD/Street Page: 11 Elector Stttc  reStreet

including other electors Printed: 28 June 2011 o e Elector Street etl  !rt ##e# to elete#( rre't  !rt ##e# to elete# &&lc't ( rre't  l"e# $e%ter  l"e# $e%ter e'#'%

HD - CAMBERLEY DRIVE 70 0 0 70 157 1 (0.64%) 0 0 158 (0.64%) CAMBRIDGE AVENUE 7 0 0 7 9 0 0 0 9 CANTERBURY CLOSE 16 0 0 16 39 2 (5.13%) 2 (5.13%) 0 39 CHADWICK HALL ROAD 14 0 0 14 22 0 1 (4.55%) 0 21 (-4.55%) CHESTER AVENUE 18 0 0 18 42 0 0 0 42 CLUBHOUSE CLOSE 3 0 0 3 7 0 0 0 7 ETON CLOSE 11 0 0 11 24 0 0 0 24 FIELDCROFT 4 0 0 4 7 0 0 0 7 FIELDHEAD AVENUE 30 0 0 30 54 0 1 (1.85%) 0 53 (-1.85%) FIELDHEAD COTTAGES 2 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 2 FORD GARDENS 32 0 0 32 34 0 4 (11.76%) 0 30 (-11.76%) Page 70 GLEN MORAG GARDENS 14 0 0 14 19 0 0 0 19 HALF ACRE LANE 2 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 2 BAMFORD COURT, HALF ACRE 28 0 0 28 28 0 0 0 28 MEWS HALF ACRE MEWS 4 0 0 4 7 0 0 0 7 ROBERT SAVILLE COURT, HALF 12 0 0 12 16 0 0 0 16 ACRE MEWS HALF ACRE ROAD 8 0 0 8 19 0 0 0 19 HANDS LANE 11 0 0 11 20 0 0 0 20 HARROW AVENUE 20 0 0 20 38 1 (2.63%) 0 0 39 (2.63%) KENION ROAD 16 0 0 16 31 0 1 (3.23%) 0 30 (-3.23%) LINKS VIEW 55 0 0 55 96 0 2 (2.08%) 0 94 (-2.08%) MARCLIFFE DRIVE 14 0 0 14 23 0 1 (4.35%) 0 22 (-4.35%) MEADOWCROFT HOUSE, 13 0 0 13 17 2 (11.76%) 1 (5.88%) 0 18 (5.88%) MEADOWCROFT LANE MEADOWCROFT LANE 15 0 0 15 25 0 0 0 25 MIDGE HALL DRIVE 38 0 0 38 76 0 1 (1.32%) 0 75 (-1.32%) MOORGATE AVENUE 31 0 0 31 66 0 0 0 66 NORTHDENE DRIVE 10 0 0 10 26 0 0 0 26 NORWICH AVENUE 23 0 0 23 47 0 2 (4.26%) 0 45 (-4.26%) OTHER ELECTORS 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 2 OULDER HILL DRIVE 70 0 0 70 144 0 1 (0.69%) 0 143 (-0.69%) OULDER HILL 11 0 0 11 24 0 0 0 24 OXFORD AVENUE 9 0 0 9 23 0 0 0 23

ELECSTAT - Elector Statistics by Area/PD/Street Page: 12 Elector Stttc  reStreet

including other electors Printed: 28 June 2011 o e Elector Street etl  !rt ##e# to elete#( rre't  !rt ##e# to elete# &&lc't ( rre't  l"e# $e%ter  l"e# $e%ter e'#'%

HD - ROCH VALLEY WAY 3 0 0 3 10 0 0 0 10 TAUNTON AVENUE 25 0 0 25 52 0 0 0 52 WINCHESTER CLOSE 11 0 0 11 26 0 0 0 26 WOODGATE AVENUE 25 0 0 25 51 0 0 0 51 WOODLANDS AVENUE 14 0 0 14 30 0 0 0 30 YEALAND CLOSE 9 0 0 9 15 0 0 0 15 YORK AVENUE 17 0 0 17 35 0 0 0 35 6otl 7or 8  9 420 ) ) 420 01554 5 B)CHADE 04 B0C)0DE ) 015F5 B9)C@5DE GT!P$ H102H ) AB)C)@DE H102A F1552 3A B)CH0DE 54 B0C03DE 0 F15A4 B9)CFADE Page 71

ELECSTAT - Elector Statistics by Area/PD/Street Page: 13 Elector Stttc  reStreet

including other electors Printed: 28 June 2011 o e Elector Street etl  !rt ##e# to elete#( rre't  !rt ##e# to elete# &&lc't ( rre't  l"e# $e%ter  l"e# $e%ter e'#'%

EA - ADAIR STREET 13 0 0 13 24 0 1 (4.17%) 0 23 (-4.17%) ALEXANDER STREET 28 0 0 28 43 0 0 0 43 ASH STREET 8 0 0 8 13 0 0 0 13 ATKINSON STREET 7 0 0 7 6 0 0 0 6 BUCKLEY BARN COURT 7 0 0 7 9 0 0 0 9 CASTLEWAY 21 0 0 21 44 0 0 0 44 CASTLE HAWK GOLF CLUB, 2 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 1 CHADWICK LANE HEYS BARN, CHADWICK LANE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 COBDEN LODGE 40 0 0 40 43 0 0 0 43 COLWYN STREET 7 0 0 7 17 0 0 0 17 Page 72 COVER DRIVE 18 0 0 18 40 0 0 0 40 DURBAN STREET 2 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 2 FAIRWAY 141 0 0 141 276 0 2 (0.72%) 0 274 (-0.72%) THE OAKLANDS, FAIRWAY 16 0 0 16 20 0 0 0 20 FAREWELL CLOSE 6 0 0 6 8 0 0 0 8 GREENWAY 8 0 0 8 11 0 0 0 11 HANOVER STREET 66 0 0 66 99 0 1 (1.01%) 0 98 (-1.01%) HEAPE STREET 12 0 0 12 18 1 (5.56%) 0 0 19 (5.56%) HEYS 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 HEYWOOD ROAD 100 0 0 100 173 2 (1.16%) 1 (0.58%) 0 174 (0.58%) THE DIRECTORS, HEYWOOD ROAD 8 0 0 8 10 0 0 0 10 KESWICK STREET 39 0 0 39 68 0 2 (2.94%) 2 66 (-2.94%) KNOLL STREET 43 0 0 43 76 0 1 (1.32%) 0 75 (-1.32%) MANCHESTER ROAD 97 0 0 97 118 1 (0.85%) 1 (0.85%) 0 118 MANCHET STREET 32 0 0 32 51 0 4 (7.84%) 0 47 (-7.84%) MAVIS STREET 12 0 0 12 24 0 0 0 24 MILNE STREET 6 0 0 6 3 0 0 0 3 MOOR PARK AVENUE 79 0 0 79 147 0 0 0 147 MOWBRAY STREET 30 0 0 30 50 0 0 0 50 NIXON STREET 10 0 0 10 14 0 0 0 14 OAKLAND TERRACE 6 0 0 6 8 0 0 0 8 OGDEN STREET 29 0 0 29 40 0 0 0 40 OTHER ELECTORS 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 PARTINGTON MEWS 9 0 0 9 4 0 0 0 4

ELECSTAT - Elector Statistics by Area/PD/Street Page: 14 Elector Stttc  reStreet

including other electors Printed: 28 June 2011 o e Elector Street etl  !rt ##e# to elete#( rre't  !rt ##e# to elete# &&lc't ( rre't  l"e# $e%ter  l"e# $e%ter e'#'%

EA - PARTINGTON STREET 91 1(1.10%) 0 92 134 1 (0.75%) 2 (1.49%) 0 133 (-0.75%) PEMBERTON STREET 3 0 0 3 5 0 0 0 5 PLEASANT COURT 18 0 0 18 20 0 0 0 20 PLEASANT STREET 34 0 0 34 62 0 0 0 62 PROGRESS STREET 18 0 0 18 30 0 0 0 30 RAILWAY APPROACH 4 0 0 4 3 0 0 0 3 RODNEY STREET 39 0 0 39 57 0 0 0 57 ROYLE BARN ROAD 12 0 0 12 17 0 0 0 17 SACKVILLE STREET 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 2 SAMUEL STREET 23 0 0 23 33 0 1 (3.03%) 0 32 (-3.03%) SHIRLEY STREET 4 0 0 4 6 0 0 0 6 SMALLEY STREET 47 0 0 47 78 0 2 (2.56%) 0 76 (-2.56%) Page 73 ST GABRIELS COURT 30 0 0 30 29 0 2 (6.90%) 0 27 (-6.90%) STOCKS STREET 21 0 0 21 27 0 1 (3.70%) 0 26 (-3.70%) STREET LODGE 23 0 0 23 29 1 (3.45%) 1 (3.45%) 0 29 SYDNEY BARNES CLOSE 13 0 0 13 21 1 (4.76%) 0 0 22 (4.76%) THE WESTCOMBE BUILDING, 24 0 0 24 28 0 0 0 28 SYDNEY BARNES CLOSE THE LIMES 4 0 0 4 4 0 0 0 4 TUDOR HALL STREET 7 0 0 7 16 0 0 0 16 6otl 7or 8 E 9 013A) 0B)C)5DE ) 013A0 A1)23 F B)C3HDE AA B0C)FDE A A1)H5 B9)CF3DE

EB - ABBOTT STREET 36 0 0 36 69 0 0 0 69 AJAX STREET 28 0 0 28 33 0 0 0 33 BARATHEA CLOSE 9 0 0 9 19 0 0 0 19 BIDEFORD ROAD 16 0 0 16 18 0 0 0 18 BLUEBELL DRIVE 17 0 0 17 41 0 0 0 41 BOLTON ROAD 71 0 0 71 121 0 1 (0.83%) 0 120 (-0.83%) BORROWDALE DRIVE 66 0 0 66 108 2 (1.85%) 1 (0.93%) 0 109 (0.93%) BROCHE CLOSE 3 0 0 3 8 0 2 (25.00%) 0 6 (-25.00%) BRUCE STREET 32 0 0 32 44 0 0 0 44 BUTTERCUP DRIVE 21 0 0 21 46 0 0 0 46 CHAMBER HOUSE DRIVE 47 0 36(76.60%) 11 147 1 (0.68%) 7 (4.76%) 0 141 (-4.08%) CHEVRON CLOSE 19 0 0 19 49 0 0 0 49

ELECSTAT - Elector Statistics by Area/PD/Street Page: 15 Elector Stttc  reStreet

including other electors Printed: 28 June 2011 o e Elector Street etl  !rt ##e# to elete#( rre't  !rt ##e# to elete# &&lc't ( rre't  l"e# $e%ter  l"e# $e%ter e'#'%

EB - CLOVELLY STREET 40 0 0 40 84 1 (1.19%) 0 0 85 (1.19%) COTALINE CLOSE 15 0 0 15 26 0 0 0 26 CRESCENT ROAD 86 0 0 86 148 0 3 (2.03%) 0 145 (-2.03%) ELIZABETH STREET 17 0 0 17 28 0 1 (3.57%) 0 27 (-3.57%) ENNERDALE ROAD 42 0 0 42 60 0 0 0 60 ESKDALE AVENUE 43 0 0 43 74 0 1 (1.35%) 0 73 (-1.35%) GRISEDALE ROAD 24 0 0 24 29 0 0 0 29 HARGREAVES STREET 11 0 0 11 20 0 0 0 20 HARRY STREET 26 0 0 26 49 0 1 (2.04%) 0 48 (-2.04%) HONISTER WAY 6 0 0 6 13 0 0 0 13 HYDON BROOK WALK 5 0 0 5 9 0 0 0 9 Page 74 ARKWRIGHT HOUSE, CARDERS 1 0 0 1 14 1 (7.14%) 2 (14.29%) 0 13 (-7.14%) COURT, IVOR STREET BROOKFIELD HOUSE, CARDERS 1 0 0 1 30 1 (3.33%) 4 (13.33%) 0 27 (-10.00%) COUR, IVOR STREET GARFIELD HOUSE, CARDERS 1 0 0 1 15 0 0 0 15 COURT, IVOR STREET LINDEN HOUSE, CARDERS COURT 1 0 0 1 14 8 (57.14%) 2 (14.29%) 0 20 (42.86%) NU, IVOR STREET IVOR STREET 33 0 0 33 59 0 0 0 59 RAKEWOOD HOUSE, CARDERS 1 0 0 1 22 0 1 (4.55%) 0 21 (-4.55%) COURT, IVOR STREET KINGSLAND ROAD 79 0 0 79 133 0 1 (0.75%) 0 132 (-0.75%) LOISINE CLOSE 7 0 0 7 19 0 0 0 19 LYNTON AVENUE 22 0 0 22 45 0 0 0 45 MANCHESTER ROAD 56 0 0 56 108 0 0 0 108 MANLEY ROAD 15 0 0 15 28 0 0 0 28 MARLAND AVENUE 15 0 0 15 22 0 0 0 22 MATTHEW MOSS LANE 8 0 0 8 15 0 0 0 15 MEADWAY 50 0 0 50 90 0 2 (2.22%) 0 88 (-2.22%) NIXON STREET 5 0 0 5 9 0 0 0 9 ONSLOW STREET 7 0 0 7 14 0 0 0 14 OTHER ELECTORS 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 PATTERDALE CLOSE 14 0 0 14 17 0 0 0 17 ROOKSWOOD DRIVE 7 0 0 7 13 0 0 0 13 SWALLOW BANK DRIVE 11 0 0 11 28 0 1 (3.57%) 0 27 (-3.57%)

ELECSTAT - Elector Statistics by Area/PD/Street Page: 16 Elector Stttc  reStreet

including other electors Printed: 28 June 2011 o e Elector Street etl  !rt ##e# to elete#( rre't  !rt ##e# to elete# &&lc't ( rre't  l"e# $e%ter  l"e# $e%ter e'#'%

EB - THIRLMERE ROAD 45 0 0 45 80 1 (1.25%) 1 (1.25%) 0 80 HILLHOUSE COURT, TREVOR 13 0 0 13 18 0 0 0 18 STREET TREVOR STREET 4 0 0 4 7 0 0 0 7 TROUTBECK WAY 10 0 0 10 17 0 0 0 17 YEW DALE GARDENS 18 0 0 18 29 0 0 0 29 6otl 7or 8 EG 9 010)@ ) 32 B3CA2DE 01)24 A1)4) 0@ B)CFADE 30 B0CH5DE ) A1)FH B9)CFFDE

EC - ALBION STREET 55 0 0 55 99 0 3 (3.03%) 0 96 (-3.03%) ALDER ROAD 62 0 0 62 98 0 1 (1.02%) 0 97 (-1.02%) BATES CLOSE 24 0 0 24 41 0 1 (2.44%) 0 40 (-2.44%)

Page 75 CASTLETON ROAD SOUTH 8 0 0 8 15 0 0 0 15 CHAUCER STREET 16 0 0 16 33 0 0 0 33 COLNE STREET 21 0 0 21 36 0 0 0 36 COWM TOP LANE 2 0 0 2 4 0 0 0 4 CROSS STREET 10 0 0 10 17 0 0 0 17 GRANT STREET 18 0 0 18 23 0 1 (4.35%) 0 22 (-4.35%) GROSVENOR STREET 26 0 0 26 41 0 0 0 41 HILARY STREET 11 0 0 11 18 0 0 0 18 HILLCREST ROAD 61 0 0 61 110 0 2 (1.82%) 0 108 (-1.82%) KIRKLEE ROAD 96 0 0 96 155 0 1 (0.65%) 0 154 (-0.65%) LEANDER DRIVE 147 0 0 147 313 0 4 (1.28%) 0 309 (-1.28%) MACAULAY STREET 4 0 0 4 7 0 0 0 7 MALCOLM STREET 15 0 0 15 19 0 0 0 19 MANCHESTER ROAD 70 0 0 70 97 0 0 0 97 MELVILLE STREET 38 0 0 38 56 1 (1.79%) 2 (3.57%) 0 55 (-1.79%) MINOR STREET 4 0 0 4 5 0 0 0 5 NEWCHURCH STREET 78 0 0 78 131 0 0 0 131 OLIVE STREET 2 0 0 2 6 0 0 0 6 OTHER ELECTORS 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 2 QUEENSWAY 49 0 0 49 67 0 0 0 67 RAGLAN STREET 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 2 SCHOLES STREET 5 0 0 5 5 1 (20.00%) 0 0 6 (20.00%) SHERWIN WAY 33 0 0 33 64 0 1 (1.56%) 0 63 (-1.56%)

ELECSTAT - Elector Statistics by Area/PD/Street Page: 17 Elector Stttc  reStreet

including other electors Printed: 28 June 2011 o e Elector Street etl  !rt ##e# to elete#( rre't  !rt ##e# to elete# &&lc't ( rre't  l"e# $e%ter  l"e# $e%ter e'#'%

EC - SHERWOOD STREET 9 0 0 9 11 1 (9.09%) 0 0 12 (9.09%) ST GABRIELS CLOSE 30 0 0 30 62 0 0 0 62 ST MARTINS STREET 88 0 0 88 128 2 (1.56%) 0 0 130 (1.56%) TROWS LANE 13 0 0 13 21 0 0 0 21 VICARAGE ROAD NORTH 32 0 0 32 60 0 1 (1.67%) 0 59 (-1.67%) VICARAGE ROAD SOUTH 7 0 0 7 14 0 0 0 14 VICARAGE VIEW 18 0 0 18 30 0 0 0 30 WASDALE STREET 17 0 0 17 28 0 0 0 28 WAVERLEY STREET 6 0 0 6 9 0 0 0 9 6otl 7or 8 E( 9 01)FF ) ) 01)FF 015AF @ B)CAFDE 0F B)C43DE ) 0150@ B9)C22DE

Page 76 ED - BOWDEN CLOSE 7 0 0 7 12 0 0 0 12 CARNFORTH AVENUE 64 0 0 64 122 0 0 0 122 CARNFORTH SQUARE 10 0 0 10 21 0 0 0 21 CHATBURN AVENUE 43 0 0 43 80 0 0 0 80 CHATBURN SQUARE 10 0 0 10 19 0 0 0 19 CHERRINGTON DRIVE 70 0 0 70 131 0 0 0 131 CHESHAM AVENUE 18 0 0 18 33 0 0 0 33 COLLINGWOOD STREET 4 0 0 4 4 0 0 0 4 CROYDON AVENUE 45 0 0 45 79 0 1 (1.27%) 0 78 (-1.27%) CROYDON SQUARE 6 0 0 6 11 0 0 0 11 FOXHILL ROAD 4 0 0 4 10 0 0 0 10 LYNDHURST AVENUE 9 0 0 9 25 0 0 0 25 MADEN VIEW 4 0 0 4 6 0 0 0 6 AVONDALE COURT, MANCHESTER 30 0 0 30 36 1 (2.78%) 1 (2.78%) 0 36 ROAD CASTLETON H.F.E., MANCHESTER 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 ROAD MEADOW VIEW NURSING HOME, 1 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 3 MANCHESTER ROAD MANCHESTER ROAD 68 0 0 68 133 0 4 (3.01%) 1 129 (-3.01%) PARTINGTON'S PARK HOMES, 14 0 0 14 14 0 0 0 14 MANCHESTER ROAD OTHER ELECTORS 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 PARKFIELD EARL STREET 2 0 0 2 7 0 0 0 7

ELECSTAT - Elector Statistics by Area/PD/Street Page: 18 Elector Stttc  reStreet

including other electors Printed: 28 June 2011 o e Elector Street etl  !rt ##e# to elete#( rre't  !rt ##e# to elete# &&lc't ( rre't  l"e# $e%ter  l"e# $e%ter e'#'%

ED - SAXONHOLME ROAD 13 0 0 13 25 0 0 0 25 THORNHAM NEW ROAD 43 0 0 43 81 0 0 0 81 WESTBROOK CLOSE 12 0 0 12 27 0 0 0 27 6otl 7or 8 E 9 HF4 ) ) HF4 5F4 0 B)C00DE 2 B)C25DE 0 5FH B9)C@FDE

EE - BENTLEY AVENUE 20 0 0 20 33 0 0 0 33 CHURCH AVENUE 4 0 0 4 6 0 0 0 6 CLIFTON ROAD 14 0 0 14 28 0 0 0 28 GRANGE ROAD 8 0 0 8 19 0 0 0 19 HOUGH LANE 4 0 0 4 11 0 0 0 11 OTHER ELECTORS 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0

Page 77 ROCHDALE ROAD 107 0 0 107 192 1 (0.52%) 0 0 193 (0.52%) SAUTRIDGE CLOSE 11 0 0 11 21 0 0 0 21 STAKEHILL LANE 30 0 0 30 52 0 0 0 52 THORNHAM LANE 33 0 0 33 66 0 0 0 66 6otl 7or 8 EE 9 A3A ) ) A3A HA5 0 B)CA3DE ) ) HA4 B)CA3DE

EF - ASHLEY CLOSE 54 0 0 54 108 0 2 (1.85%) 0 106 (-1.85%) GIPSY LANE 6 0 0 6 14 0 0 0 14 WOOLWORTHS SPORTS & SOCIAL, 1 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 3 GIPSY LANE LAWNSWOOD 47 0 0 47 89 0 2 (2.25%) 0 87 (-2.25%) MANCHESTER ROAD 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 ROYLELANDS BUNGALOWS, 30 0 0 30 35 0 3 (8.57%) 0 32 (-8.57%) MANCHESTER ROAD ROYLE ROAD 36 0 0 36 61 1 (1.64%) 0 0 62 (1.64%) THE GREEN 30 0 0 30 58 0 0 0 58 THE WOODS 13 0 0 13 31 0 0 0 31 TOMLINSON STREET 29 0 0 29 47 0 0 0 47 6otl 7or 8 E! 9 AHF ) ) AHF HHF 0 B)CAADE F B0C@FDE ) HH0 B90C3HDE (S6IE6PQ H1H2) 0B)C)ADE 32B)C50DE H1HA@ F1F3H 3) B)C34DE 53 B0C)FDE 3 F1250 B9)C24DE

ELECSTAT - Elector Statistics by Area/PD/Street Page: 19 Elector Stttc  reStreet

including other electors Printed: 28 June 2011 o e Elector Street etl  !rt ##e# to elete#( rre't  !rt ##e# to elete# &&lc't ( rre't  l"e# $e%ter  l"e# $e%ter e'#'%

GA - DUNKIRK RISE, COLLEGE BANK 119 0 0 119 154 1 (0.65%) 3 (1.95%) 0 152 (-1.30%) HOLLAND RISE, COLLEGE BANK 93 0 0 93 101 1 (0.99%) 0 0 102 (0.99%) MARDYKE, COLLEGE BANK 96 0 0 96 101 0 0 0 101 MITCHELL HEY, COLLEGE BANK 120 0 0 120 154 0 0 0 154 TENTERCROFT, COLLEGE BANK 120 0 0 120 155 0 0 0 155 TOWN MILL BROW, COLLEGE BANK 120 0 0 120 144 4 (2.78%) 3 (2.08%) 0 145 (0.69%) UNDERWOOD, COLLEGE BANK 97 0 0 97 100 0 1 (1.00%) 0 99 (-1.00%) ABBEYDALE, LOWER FALINGE 19 0 0 19 21 0 2 (9.52%) 0 19 (-9.52%) EXBURY, LOWER FALINGE 16 0 0 16 20 2 (10.00%) 0 0 22 (10.00%) IBSLEY, LOWER FALINGE 20 0 0 20 23 0 0 0 23 JOHNSTON, LOWER FALINGE 23 0 0 23 31 1 (3.23%) 0 0 32 (3.23%) Page 78 KIRKSTALL, LOWER FALINGE 12 0 0 12 12 0 0 0 12 LINDISFARNE, LOWER FALINGE 16 0 0 16 11 0 0 0 11 MELROSE, LOWER FALINGE 32 0 0 32 30 0 1 (3.33%) 0 29 (-3.33%) NEWSTEAD, LOWER FALINGE 25 0 0 25 33 1 (3.03%) 1 (3.03%) 0 33 OLLERTON, LOWER FALINGE 12 0 0 12 17 0 0 0 17 PERSHORE, LOWER FALINGE 43 0 0 43 56 3 (5.36%) 1 (1.79%) 0 58 (3.57%) QUINTON, LOWER FALINGE 27 0 0 27 34 1 (2.94%) 0 0 35 (2.94%) ROMSEY, LOWER FALINGE 12 0 0 12 15 0 4 (26.67%) 0 11 (-26.67%) STAVORDALE, LOWER FALINGE 16 0 0 16 20 0 0 0 20 THETFORD, LOWER FALINGE 18 0 0 18 24 0 2 (8.33%) 0 22 (-8.33%) ULLESTHORPE, LOWER FALINGE 15 0 0 15 20 2 (10.00%) 0 0 22 (10.00%) VAYNOR, LOWER FALINGE 28 0 0 28 36 1 (2.78%) 1 (2.78%) 0 36 WAVERLEY, LOWER FALINGE 16 0 0 16 22 0 2 (9.09%) 0 20 (-9.09%) YARWELL, LOWER FALINGE 16 0 0 16 22 0 0 0 22 ZEDBURGH, LOWER FALINGE 24 0 0 24 32 0 3 (9.38%) 0 29 (-9.38%) OTHER ELECTORS 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 6otl 7or 8 U 9 010@2 ) ) 010@2 01355 0F B0CAADE AH B0CF3DE ) 01350 B9)C@)DE

GB - ALMA STREET 3 0 0 3 5 0 0 0 5 PEMBROKE COURT, ALMA STREET 37 0 0 37 8 0 6 (75.00%) 0 2 (-75.00%) CASSON GATE 16 0 0 16 27 0 0 0 27 CENTURY GARDENS 14 0 0 14 22 0 0 0 22 CROMER STREET 21 0 0 21 31 0 0 0 31

ELECSTAT - Elector Statistics by Area/PD/Street Page: 20 Elector Stttc  reStreet

including other electors Printed: 28 June 2011 o e Elector Street etl  !rt ##e# to elete#( rre't  !rt ##e# to elete# &&lc't ( rre't  l"e# $e%ter  l"e# $e%ter e'#'%

GB - CRONKEYSHAW ROAD 49 0 0 49 84 0 0 0 84 DAWSON STREET 4 0 0 4 3 0 0 0 3 DENTON STREET 14 0 0 14 22 0 0 0 22 DERWENT STREET 11 0 0 11 22 0 0 0 22 DUKE STREET 59 0 0 59 109 3 (2.75%) 2 (1.83%) 0 110 (0.92%) FALINGE ROAD 5 0 0 5 8 0 0 0 8 GOOSE LANE 3 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 3 GRASMERE STREET 21 0 0 21 35 0 0 0 35 GREEN LANE 2 0 0 2 8 0 0 0 8 GREENLEES STREET 6 0 0 6 9 0 0 0 9 GROUSE STREET 53 0 0 53 90 1 (1.11%) 2 (2.22%) 0 89 (-1.11%) HEIGHTS COURT, HEIGHTS LANE 12 0 0 12 20 1 (5.00%) 0 0 21 (5.00%) Page 79 HEIGHTS LANE 33 0 0 33 59 0 0 0 59 HENDRIFF PLACE 8 0 0 8 10 0 0 0 10 HIGH STREET 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 2 PROVIDENCE HOUSE, HIGH STREET 1 0 0 1 58 0 54 (93.10%) 0 4 (-93.10%) HOPE COURT, HOPE STREET 12 0 0 12 12 0 0 0 12 HOPE STREET 24 0 0 24 47 0 0 0 47 HOWARD STREET 33 0 0 33 53 1 (1.89%) 0 0 54 (1.89%) INDUSTRY ROAD 43 0 0 43 67 2 (2.99%) 1 (1.49%) 0 68 (1.49%) KERSHAW STREET 6 0 0 6 7 0 0 0 7 KNOWSLEY STREET 3 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 1 LAURIE PLACE 4 0 0 4 3 0 0 0 3 LEAMINGTON STREET 22 0 0 22 38 0 0 0 38 ATHERSTONE, LOWER FALINGE 16 0 0 16 19 0 0 0 19 BROMFIELD, LOWER FALINGE 16 0 0 16 17 0 0 0 17 CARTMEL, LOWER FALINGE 16 0 0 16 20 0 1 (5.00%) 0 19 (-5.00%) DUNSTABLE, LOWER FALINGE 16 0 0 16 20 0 0 0 20 EDINGTON, LOWER FALINGE 16 0 0 16 21 0 5 (23.81%) 0 16 (-23.81%) FRIESTON, LOWER FALINGE 16 0 0 16 19 0 0 0 19 GLASTONBURY, LOWER FALINGE 16 0 0 16 13 0 0 0 13 HINTON, LOWER FALINGE 15 0 0 15 17 2 (11.76%) 0 0 19 (11.76%) MEDLEY STREET 34 0 0 34 64 2 (3.13%) 0 0 66 (3.13%) MILFORD STREET 15 0 0 15 20 3 (15.00%) 0 0 23 (15.00%)

ELECSTAT - Elector Statistics by Area/PD/Street Page: 21 Elector Stttc  reStreet

including other electors Printed: 28 June 2011 o e Elector Street etl  !rt ##e# to elete#( rre't  !rt ##e# to elete# &&lc't ( rre't  l"e# $e%ter  l"e# $e%ter e'#'%

GB - MOORFIELD PLACE 2 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 1 MOORLAND STREET 7 0 0 7 9 0 0 0 9 NOON SUN STREET 8 0 0 8 20 2 (10.00%) 0 0 22 (10.00%) OLD MILL STREET 7 0 0 7 12 0 0 0 12 OTHER ELECTORS 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 QUARRY STREET 19 0 0 19 39 1 (2.56%) 0 0 40 (2.56%) REDCAR STREET 5 0 0 5 9 0 0 0 9 REDCROSS STREET 37 1(2.70%) 0 38 62 0 1 (1.61%) 0 61 (-1.61%) REFORM STREET 10 0 0 10 17 0 0 0 17 ROPE STREET 24 0 0 24 28 1 (3.57%) 3 (10.71%) 0 26 (-7.14%) SAWYER STREET 15 0 0 15 20 0 0 0 20 Page 80 SHERIFF STREET 26 0 0 26 59 3 (5.08%) 2 (3.39%) 0 60 (1.69%) SLADEN STREET 10 0 0 10 25 0 0 0 25 STANLEY STREET 46 0 0 46 86 0 2 (2.33%) 0 84 (-2.33%) SWAIN STREET 12 0 0 12 19 0 0 0 19 TIFLIS STREET 4 0 0 4 6 0 0 0 6 TURNER STREET 10 0 0 10 19 0 0 0 19 WALKDEN STREET 6 0 0 6 8 0 0 0 8 WHITEHALL STREET 73 0 0 73 106 0 1 (0.94%) 0 105 (-0.94%) ROCHDALE INFIRMARY, WHITEHALL 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 STREET WHITWORTH ROAD 15 0 0 15 18 5 (27.78%) 1 (5.56%) 0 22 (22.22%) WILSON STREET 6 0 0 6 12 0 0 0 12 6otl 7or 8 UG 9 01)H) 0B)C0)DE ) 01)H0 01225 AF B0C2ADE 50 BHC52DE ) 0120H B93CAHDE

GC - ADA STREET 32 0 0 32 46 0 0 0 46 BANTRY STREET 4 0 0 4 7 0 0 0 7 BAY STREET 29 0 0 29 54 2 (3.70%) 2 (3.70%) 0 54 BLANCHE STREET 28 0 0 28 32 1 (3.13%) 1 (3.13%) 0 32 CEDAR STREET 5 0 0 5 7 0 0 0 7 DAVID STREET NORTH 6 0 0 6 14 0 0 0 14 DAVID STREET 14 0 0 14 20 0 0 0 20 ELLIOTT STREET 22 0 0 22 35 0 0 0 35 ELM STREET 10 0 0 10 14 0 0 0 14

ELECSTAT - Elector Statistics by Area/PD/Street Page: 22 Elector Stttc  reStreet

including other electors Printed: 28 June 2011 o e Elector Street etl  !rt ##e# to elete#( rre't  !rt ##e# to elete# &&lc't ( rre't  l"e# $e%ter  l"e# $e%ter e'#'%

GC - FLANNEL STREET 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 2 FOLLY WALK 5 0 0 5 10 0 0 0 10 FOXHOLES CLOSE 15 0 0 15 33 0 1 (3.03%) 0 32 (-3.03%) FOXHOLES ROAD 37 0 0 37 58 0 0 0 58 GREENBANK ROAD 52 0 0 52 95 1 (1.05%) 0 0 96 (1.05%) JAMES STREET 2 0 0 2 5 0 0 0 5 JARVIS STREET 25 0 0 25 35 0 0 0 35 JEPHEYS STREET 15 0 0 15 22 0 0 0 22 JERMYN STREET FLATS 4 0 0 4 3 0 0 0 3 JERMYN STREET 8 0 0 8 8 0 0 0 8 LOMAX STREET 15 0 0 15 35 0 0 0 35 MARGROY CLOSE 32 0 0 32 61 0 0 0 61 Page 81 MAUD STREET 50 0 0 50 88 0 0 0 88 MAUREEN STREET 12 0 0 12 16 0 0 0 16 OTHER ELECTORS 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 2 PARK HILL 4 0 0 4 14 0 0 0 14 PRINCESS STREET 2 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 1 REGENT STREET 14 0 0 14 27 0 0 0 27 RIVINGTON STREET 21 0 0 21 60 0 0 0 60 ROSSALL ROAD 23 0 0 23 55 0 0 0 55 RUGBY ROAD 49 0 0 49 69 1 (1.45%) 0 0 70 (1.45%) STOTT STREET 2 0 0 2 4 0 0 0 4 TAYLOR STREET 30 0 0 30 60 0 0 0 60 PARK HILL MEWS, TAYLOR STREET 4 0 0 4 4 0 0 0 4 WATTS STREET 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 WELLINGTON STREET 3 0 0 3 5 0 0 0 5 WHITWORTH ROAD 27 0 0 27 18 0 0 0 18 YORKSHIRE STREET 13 0 0 13 44 0 0 0 44 6otl 7or 8 U( 9 20F ) ) 20F 01)2H @ B)CHFDE H B)C35DE ) 01)2@ B)C)4DE

GD - ALICE STREET 43 0 0 43 71 1 (1.41%) 1 (1.41%) 0 71 ALL SAINTS TERRACE 7 0 0 7 9 0 0 0 9 ATHOL COURT, ATHOL STREET 3 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 3 ATHOL STREET 3 0 0 3 2 0 0 0 2

ELECSTAT - Elector Statistics by Area/PD/Street Page: 23 Elector Stttc  reStreet

including other electors Printed: 28 June 2011 o e Elector Street etl  !rt ##e# to elete#( rre't  !rt ##e# to elete# &&lc't ( rre't  l"e# $e%ter  l"e# $e%ter e'#'%

GD - BRITON STREET 6 0 0 6 16 0 2 (12.50%) 0 14 (-12.50%) CLAYTON STREET 6 0 0 6 14 0 0 0 14 CLIFF STREET 7 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 COLLEY STREET 16 0 0 16 47 0 0 0 47 COOK STREET 24 0 0 24 39 0 1 (2.56%) 0 38 (-2.56%) DAVYHULME STREET 31 0 0 31 48 0 0 0 48 DEAN STREET 25 0 0 25 41 0 3 (7.32%) 0 38 (-7.32%) DENMARK STREET 7 0 0 7 23 0 0 0 23 DIVISION STREET 27 0 0 27 46 0 0 0 46 ENTWISLE ROAD 82 0 0 82 156 0 1 (0.64%) 0 155 (-0.64%) ERNEST TERRACE 29 0 0 29 65 0 0 0 65 Page 82 GOWERS STREET 26 0 0 26 73 0 0 0 73 HALIFAX ROAD 48 0 0 48 78 0 1 (1.28%) 0 77 (-1.28%) TUDOR COURT, HALIFAX ROAD 5 0 0 5 10 0 0 0 10 HAMER HALL CRESCENT 26 0 0 26 32 0 1 (3.13%) 0 31 (-3.13%) HAMER LANE 26 0 0 26 59 0 1 (1.69%) 0 58 (-1.69%) HARVEY STREET 9 0 0 9 12 0 0 0 12 HECTOR AVENUE 17 0 0 17 39 0 0 0 39 HEYBROOK HOUSE 3 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 3 HEYBROOK STREET 8 0 0 8 19 0 0 0 19 JACK TAYLOR COURT 12 0 0 12 14 0 1 (7.14%) 0 13 (-7.14%) MARK STREET 13 0 0 13 26 0 0 0 26 MAYFIELD STREET 2 0 0 2 6 0 0 0 6 MORLEY STREET 48 0 0 48 132 2 (1.52%) 0 0 134 (1.52%) OSWALD STREET 91 0 0 91 279 2 (0.72%) 1 (0.36%) 0 280 (0.36%) OTHER ELECTORS 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 PARK ROAD 106 0 0 106 225 1 (0.44%) 2 (0.89%) 0 224 (-0.44%) RED LANE 27 0 0 27 41 1 (2.44%) 0 0 42 (2.44%) ROTHWELL STREET 23 0 0 23 47 1 (2.13%) 0 0 48 (2.13%) SELBY STREET 15 0 0 15 37 0 0 0 37 SHAW STREET 18 0 0 18 25 1 (4.00%) 0 0 26 (4.00%) WARWICK STREET 14 0 0 14 17 0 0 0 17 YEW COURT, WARWICK STREET 33 0 2(6.06%) 31 35 0 2 (5.71%) 0 33 (-5.71%) WEEDON STREET 3 0 0 3 10 0 0 0 10

ELECSTAT - Elector Statistics by Area/PD/Street Page: 24 Elector Stttc  reStreet

including other electors Printed: 28 June 2011 o e Elector Street etl  !rt ##e# to elete#( rre't  !rt ##e# to elete# &&lc't ( rre't  l"e# $e%ter  l"e# $e%ter e'#'%

GD - YORKSHIRE STREET 18 0 0 18 58 0 0 0 58 6otl 7or 8 U 9 4)5 ) A B)CAADE 4)2 015@F 4 B)CH5DE 0F B)C4ADE ) 015H4 B9)CH3DE

GE - ARTHINGTON STREET 9 0 0 9 11 0 0 0 11 BEVERLEY PLACE 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 BLAKE STREET 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 COPENHAGEN SQUARE 4 0 0 4 7 0 0 0 7 COPENHAGEN STREET 14 0 0 14 33 0 0 0 33 ENTWISLE ROAD 65 0 0 65 184 1 (0.54%) 1 (0.54%) 0 184 GOOD SHEPHERD CLOSE 27 0 0 27 88 1 (1.14%) 0 0 89 (1.14%) HEY STREET 43 0 0 43 99 1 (1.01%) 0 0 100 (1.01%)

Page 83 JACKSONS PLACE 2 0 0 2 5 0 0 0 5 KELLETT STREET 27 0 0 27 62 2 (3.23%) 2 (3.23%) 0 62 NILE STREET 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OTHER ELECTORS 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 RAMSAY PLACE 4 0 0 4 4 0 0 0 4 RAMSAY STREET 54 0 0 54 149 0 0 0 149 RAMSAY TERRACE 18 0 0 18 38 1 (2.63%) 0 0 39 (2.63%) TRAFALGAR STREET 20 0 0 20 41 0 0 0 41 6otl 7or 8 UE 9 A54 ) ) A54 FA0 2 B)C53DE 3 B)CHADE ) FAH B)CHADE

GF - ABOUKIR STREET 3 0 0 3 7 0 0 0 7 BRUNSWICK STREET 13 0 0 13 41 0 2 (4.88%) 0 39 (-4.88%) BUCKINGHAM STREET 18 0 0 18 63 0 0 0 63 BULWER STREET 7 0 0 7 21 0 0 0 21 CORBETT STREET 16 0 0 16 50 0 0 0 50 EAST STREET 33 0 0 33 68 0 0 0 68 PENNINE VIEW, EAST STREET 26 0 0 26 29 0 0 0 29 EDWARD STREET 19 0 0 19 38 0 0 0 38 FITTON STREET 25 0 0 25 56 0 0 0 56 GEORGE STREET 6 0 0 6 12 0 1 (8.33%) 0 11 (-8.33%) JOHN STREET 24 0 0 24 34 0 3 (8.82%) 0 31 (-8.82%) NORTH STREET 12 0 0 12 37 1 (2.70%) 0 0 38 (2.70%)

ELECSTAT - Elector Statistics by Area/PD/Street Page: 25 Elector Stttc  reStreet

including other electors Printed: 28 June 2011 o e Elector Street etl  !rt ##e# to elete#( rre't  !rt ##e# to elete# &&lc't ( rre't  l"e# $e%ter  l"e# $e%ter e'#'%

GF - OTHER ELECTORS 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 RAMSAY STREET 56 0 0 56 149 1 (0.67%) 0 0 150 (0.67%) ROACH PLACE 8 0 0 8 25 1 (4.00%) 0 0 26 (4.00%) ROBERT STREET 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 SOUTH PLACE 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 SOUTH STREET 66 0 0 66 207 2 (0.97%) 0 0 209 (0.97%) SOUTH COURT, SOUTH STREET 10 0 0 10 27 0 0 0 27 TRAFALGAR STREET 18 0 0 18 35 0 0 0 35 JACK MCCANN COURT, TRAFALGER 44 0 0 44 48 2 (4.17%) 3 (6.25%) 0 47 (-2.08%) STREET WEST STREET 22 0 0 22 86 0 0 0 86 Page 84 YORKSHIRE STREET 47 0 0 47 88 0 3 (3.41%) 0 85 (-3.41%) 6otl 7or 8 U! 9 HF2 ) ) HF2 010A3 F B)C2ADE 0A B0C)FDE ) 01005 B9)CH@DE (EQ6$I $P(IE H1H52 0B)C)ADE AB)C)HDE H1H5@ F15A0 F0 B)C40DE 0H0 B0C5)DE ) F1F@0 B9)C4)DE

ELECSTAT - Elector Statistics by Area/PD/Street Page: 26 Elector Stttc  reStreet

including other electors Printed: 28 June 2011 o e Elector Street etl  !rt ##e# to elete#( rre't  !rt ##e# to elete# &&lc't ( rre't  l"e# $e%ter  l"e# $e%ter e'#'%

NA - APPLE WAY 26 0 0 26 44 0 0 0 44 BANK TOP 4 0 0 4 6 0 0 0 6 BIRCH AVENUE 24 0 0 24 38 0 0 0 38 BRIERLEY DRIVE 34 0 0 34 58 0 0 0 58 BROOKBANK CLOSE 9 0 0 9 23 1 (4.35%) 0 0 24 (4.35%) COLWYN AVENUE 8 0 0 8 17 0 0 0 17 EAST CRESCENT 7 0 0 7 16 0 0 0 16 EASTFIELD AVENUE 25 0 0 25 39 0 0 0 39 EVANS STREET 6 0 0 6 11 0 0 0 11 FARMWAY 80 0 0 80 145 1 (0.69%) 1 (0.69%) 0 145 FRAMPTON CLOSE 18 0 0 18 37 0 0 0 37 HIGH BARN ROAD 35 0 0 35 59 0 0 0 59 Page 85 HIGHFIELD DRIVE 31 0 0 31 56 0 0 0 56 KINGSWAY 38 0 0 38 84 0 0 0 84 KIRKWAY 61 0 0 61 95 0 0 0 95 LEVER WALK 10 0 0 10 19 0 0 0 19 MANCHESTER NEW ROAD 14 0 0 14 28 0 0 0 28 DANE HOUSE, MIDDLETON VIEW 12 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 MIDDLETON VIEW 9 0 0 9 14 0 0 0 14 MILL FOLD ROAD 67 0 0 67 111 2 (1.80%) 5 (4.50%) 0 108 (-2.70%) MOUNT FOLD 9 0 0 9 17 0 0 0 17 MOUNT ROAD 117 0 0 117 233 3 (1.29%) 2 (0.86%) 0 234 (0.43%) NAUNTON ROAD 56 0 0 56 97 0 1 (1.03%) 0 96 (-1.03%) OAK AVENUE 18 0 0 18 25 0 0 0 25 OLDHAM ROAD 10 0 0 10 17 0 0 0 17 TONGE COURT, OLDHAM ROAD 33 0 0 33 33 0 1 (3.03%) 0 32 (-3.03%) ORME AVENUE 26 0 0 26 53 0 1 (1.89%) 0 52 (-1.89%) OTHER ELECTORS 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 PEAR CLOSE 15 0 0 15 27 0 0 0 27 PENRHYN AVENUE 65 0 0 65 120 0 0 0 120 RHOS AVENUE 26 0 0 26 45 0 0 0 45 ROUNDTHORN ROAD 78 0 0 78 141 0 0 0 141 RUTHIN AVENUE 69 0 0 69 123 0 0 0 123 SAVIO WAY 19 0 0 19 42 0 0 0 42

ELECSTAT - Elector Statistics by Area/PD/Street Page: 27 Elector Stttc  reStreet

including other electors Printed: 28 June 2011 o e Elector Street etl  !rt ##e# to elete#( rre't  !rt ##e# to elete# &&lc't ( rre't  l"e# $e%ter  l"e# $e%ter e'#'%

NA - SAXON STREET 2 0 0 2 3 0 0 0 3 SILK MILL WAY 8 0 0 8 15 0 0 0 15 ST DOMINICS WAY 46 0 0 46 95 0 0 0 95 STANWAY CLOSE 17 0 0 17 25 2 (8.00%) 0 0 27 (8.00%) TONGE HALL CLOSE 2 0 0 2 7 0 0 0 7 WESTFIELD AVENUE 20 0 0 20 34 0 0 0 34 WHITECROFT MEADOW 62 0 0 62 82 0 6 (7.32%) 0 76 (-7.32%) WINCE BROOK 2 0 0 2 3 0 0 0 3 WYCHWOOD CLOSE 15 0 0 15 28 0 0 0 28 6otl 7or 8 Q 9 01A3H ) ) 01A3H A102@ 4 B)CHADE 0F B)CF4DE ) A10@F B9)C3FDE

Page 86 NB - ALBANY STREET 22 0 0 22 35 1 (2.86%) 2 (5.71%) 0 34 (-2.86%) ANDREW STREET 58 0 0 58 102 2 (1.96%) 1 (0.98%) 0 103 (0.98%) ASPINALL GARDENS 10 0 0 10 18 0 0 0 18 AVRO COURT, ASPINALL STREET 37 0 0 37 35 0 0 0 35 ASPINALL STREET 55 0 0 55 98 1 (1.02%) 0 0 99 (1.02%) BIRCHWOOD ROAD 37 0 0 37 70 0 0 0 70 BISHOP STREET 10 0 0 10 17 0 0 0 17 BRADSHAW STREET 15 0 0 15 22 0 0 0 22 BUTTERWORTH STREET 6 0 0 6 10 0 0 0 10 CASTLE STREET 5 0 0 5 9 0 0 0 9 CEDAR ROAD 54 0 0 54 115 0 2 (1.74%) 0 113 (-1.74%) CHALE DRIVE 25 0 0 25 46 0 0 0 46 CHILTON DRIVE 25 0 0 25 53 0 0 0 53 LANCASTER HOUSE, CHURCH ROAD 12 0 0 12 10 0 0 0 10 CHURCH ROAD 17 0 0 17 30 0 0 0 30 COMPTON WAY 85 0 0 85 176 0 1 (0.57%) 0 175 (-0.57%) CYPRESS STREET 56 0 0 56 108 0 0 0 108 DANE BANK 23 0 0 23 50 1 (2.00%) 1 (2.00%) 0 50 DAVIDS FARM CLOSE 28 0 0 28 59 0 0 0 59 EASTON CLOSE 6 0 0 6 16 0 0 0 16 GABRIEL'S TERRACE 19 0 0 19 39 0 2 (5.13%) 0 37 (-5.13%) GLEN GROVE 13 0 0 13 25 0 0 0 25 GREENHILL ROAD 68 0 0 68 119 2 (1.68%) 3 (2.52%) 0 118 (-0.84%)

ELECSTAT - Elector Statistics by Area/PD/Street Page: 28 Elector Stttc  reStreet

including other electors Printed: 28 June 2011 o e Elector Street etl  !rt ##e# to elete#( rre't  !rt ##e# to elete# &&lc't ( rre't  l"e# $e%ter  l"e# $e%ter e'#'%

NB - GREENHILL TERRACE 4 0 0 4 6 0 0 0 6 DOVEDALE COURT H.F.E., 1 0 0 1 18 0 0 0 18 GRIMSHAW LANE GRIMSHAW LANE 120 0 0 120 178 2 (1.12%) 3 (1.69%) 0 177 (-0.56%) WINCE BROOK COURT, GRIMSHAW 51 0 0 51 59 0 1 (1.69%) 0 58 (-1.69%) LANE HOYLE STREET 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 2 JOSHUA LANE 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 KENYON LANE 31 0 0 31 56 0 0 0 56 LANCASTER AVENUE 30 0 0 30 44 0 2 (4.55%) 0 42 (-4.55%) MALTA CLOSE 18 0 0 18 43 0 0 0 43 MARSDEN STREET 3 0 0 3 7 0 0 0 7

Page 87 NEILSON CLOSE 27 0 0 27 58 0 0 0 58 NELSON STREET 60 0 0 60 91 0 1 (1.10%) 0 90 (-1.10%) NEWBANK CLOSE 11 0 0 11 23 0 0 0 23 OTHER ELECTORS 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 2 PHYLLIS STREET 31 0 0 31 74 0 0 0 74 PINE STREET 5 0 0 5 8 0 0 0 8 POPLAR STREET 27 0 0 27 28 0 1 (3.57%) 0 27 (-3.57%) WATERS EDGE, RIVER VIEW 9 2(22.22%) 2(22.22%) 9 6 0 0 0 6 SANDY LANE 33 0 0 33 57 0 0 0 57 SEDGLEY CLOSE 21 0 0 21 32 0 0 0 32 LONSDALE COURT, SEDGLEY 33 0 0 33 34 0 0 0 34 STREET SEDGLEY STREET 7 0 0 7 12 0 0 0 12 SMETHURST STREET 27 0 0 27 38 0 1 (2.63%) 0 37 (-2.63%) ST GABRIELS MEWS 21 0 0 21 24 0 0 0 24 TONGE ROUGHS 11 0 0 11 24 0 0 0 24 WADE STREET 7 0 0 7 10 0 0 0 10 WATERS EDGE 9 1(11.11%) 0 10 2 3 (150.00%) 0 0 5 (150.00%) RIVER VIEW, WATERS EDGE 19 1(5.26%) 0 20 15 2 (13.33%) 0 0 17 (13.33%) WHITELEY DRIVE 15 0 0 15 36 0 0 0 36 WILLOW AVENUE 58 0 0 58 95 2 (2.11%) 1 (1.05%) 0 96 (1.05%) WOOD LANE 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 2 6otl 7or 8 QG 9 013F4 HB)CA4DE A B)C0@DE 01350 A13HF 02 B)C25DE AA B)C4HDE ) A13H0 B9)CA2DE

ELECSTAT - Elector Statistics by Area/PD/Street Page: 29 Elector Stttc  reStreet

including other electors Printed: 28 June 2011 o e Elector Street etl  !rt ##e# to elete#( rre't  !rt ##e# to elete# &&lc't ( rre't  l"e# $e%ter  l"e# $e%ter e'#'%

NC - ALKRINGTON COURT 24 0 0 24 26 0 0 0 26 ANDOVER AVENUE 141 0 0 141 267 0 2 (0.75%) 0 265 (-0.75%) ARDEN AVENUE 40 0 0 40 67 0 0 0 67 BROOKSIDE CRESCENT 36 0 0 36 62 0 2 (3.23%) 0 60 (-3.23%) BROW AVENUE 37 0 0 37 72 0 0 0 72 DAVIDSON DRIVE 25 0 0 25 44 0 0 0 44 EVESHAM ROAD 79 0 0 79 145 0 3 (2.07%) 0 142 (-2.07%) EVESHAM WALK 49 0 0 49 65 0 0 0 65 KINGSWAY 9 0 0 9 18 0 0 0 18 LINCOLN ROAD 33 0 0 33 55 0 0 0 55 LOWLANDS CLOSE 24 0 0 24 41 0 1 (2.44%) 0 40 (-2.44%) Page 88 LYMINGTON CLOSE 18 0 0 18 48 0 0 0 48 MAINWAY EAST 47 0 0 47 100 0 2 (2.00%) 0 98 (-2.00%) MAYBURN CLOSE 41 0 0 41 52 0 0 0 52 MOSS FARM CLOSE 13 0 0 13 16 0 1 (6.25%) 0 15 (-6.25%) MOSSYLEA CLOSE 10 0 0 10 21 0 0 0 21 OTHER ELECTORS 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 THE COPPICE 5 0 0 5 5 0 0 0 5 THE DOWNS 95 0 0 95 130 4 (3.08%) 0 0 134 (3.08%) THE GLEN 39 0 0 39 61 1 (1.64%) 0 0 62 (1.64%) THE HEATH 77 0 0 77 100 0 1 (1.00%) 0 99 (-1.00%) THE MEADOWS 89 0 0 89 130 0 0 0 130 THE MOSS 53 0 0 53 73 0 1 (1.37%) 0 72 (-1.37%) BLACKLEY GOLF CLUB, VICTORIA 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 AVENUE EAST,BL WINCE CLOSE 51 0 0 51 101 0 0 0 101 YORK ROAD EAST 76 0 0 76 125 0 0 0 125 YORK ROAD WEST 51 0 0 51 98 0 0 0 98 6otl 7or 8 Q( 9 0102H ) ) 0102H 014AA @ B)CA2DE 03 B)C25DE ) 0140H B9)CHADE

ND - ASH STREET 53 0 0 53 81 0 0 0 81 ASPINALL STREET 2 0 0 2 4 0 0 0 4 BAYTREE LANE 69 0 0 69 100 2 (2.00%) 0 0 102 (2.00%) BERWYN AVENUE 24 0 0 24 49 0 0 0 49

ELECSTAT - Elector Statistics by Area/PD/Street Page: 30 Elector Stttc  reStreet

including other electors Printed: 28 June 2011 o e Elector Street etl  !rt ##e# to elete#( rre't  !rt ##e# to elete# &&lc't ( rre't  l"e# $e%ter  l"e# $e%ter e'#'%

ND - BIRCHWOOD ROAD 18 0 0 18 34 0 0 0 34 CHEVIOT CLOSE 39 0 0 39 61 0 0 0 61 COLLINGE AVENUE 10 0 0 10 22 0 1 (4.55%) 0 21 (-4.55%) COWPER STREET 34 0 0 34 51 3 (5.88%) 1 (1.96%) 0 53 (3.92%) DAMSON GREEN 8 0 0 8 13 0 0 0 13 ELM BANK ROAD 33 0 0 33 62 0 1 (1.61%) 0 61 (-1.61%) ELM STREET 52 0 0 52 110 0 0 0 110 FERN CLOSE 70 0 0 70 100 1 (1.00%) 2 (2.00%) 0 99 (-1.00%) KENYON LANE 69 0 0 69 124 0 0 0 124 PORTAL COURT, KENYON LANE 46 0 0 46 56 1 (1.79%) 1 (1.79%) 0 56 LABURNUM ROAD 13 0 0 13 23 0 0 0 23 LARCH VIEW ROAD 50 0 0 50 95 0 0 0 95 Page 89 LAUREL STREET 12 0 0 12 18 0 1 (5.56%) 0 17 (-5.56%) MAPLE CLOSE 28 0 0 28 32 0 1 (3.13%) 0 31 (-3.13%) MILLS HILL ROAD 35 0 0 35 61 3 (4.92%) 2 (3.28%) 0 62 (1.64%) MONMOUTH STREET 63 0 0 63 115 0 1 (0.87%) 0 114 (-0.87%) OAKDENE ROAD 27 0 0 27 50 0 0 0 50 OAKWOOD MEWS 8 0 0 8 9 0 0 0 9 OLD MILLS HILL 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 OLDHAM ROAD 127 1(0.79%) 0 128 204 2 (0.98%) 1 (0.49%) 0 205 (0.49%) OTHER ELECTORS 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 PEMBRIDGE FOLD 10 0 0 10 22 0 0 0 22 QUEEN STREET 23 0 0 23 42 0 0 0 42 ARCHMOOR, SANDY LANE 1 0 0 1 22 0 7 (31.82%) 0 15 (-31.82%) SANDY LANE 22 0 0 22 31 0 2 (6.45%) 0 29 (-6.45%) SAVILLE STREET 4 0 0 4 7 0 0 0 7 STUART STREET 12 0 0 12 15 0 1 (6.67%) 0 14 (-6.67%) TREGAER FOLD 18 0 0 18 38 0 0 0 38 6otl 7or 8 Q 9 45A 0B)C0)DE ) 453 012@3 0A B)CF3DE AA B0C33DE ) 012H3 B9)C2)DE ES6 TSIE6PQ H1F@4 @B)C00DE AB)C)HDE H1F2A 51)5F HA B)C@ADE FH B)C4ADE ) 51)@@ B9)CH)DE

ELECSTAT - Elector Statistics by Area/PD/Street Page: 31 Elector Stttc  reStreet

including other electors Printed: 28 June 2011 o e Elector Street etl  !rt ##e# to elete#( rre't  !rt ##e# to elete# &&lc't ( rre't  l"e# $e%ter  l"e# $e%ter e'#'%

AA - ABERDEEN GARDENS 11 0 0 11 24 0 1 (4.17%) 0 23 (-4.17%) ASHDENE 4 0 0 4 9 0 0 0 9 BEIGHTONS WALK 34 0 0 34 60 0 0 0 60 BERNARD STREET 17 0 0 17 20 0 0 0 20 BETONY CLOSE 25 0 0 25 46 0 0 0 46 BROOKDALE 95 0 0 95 183 0 0 0 183 BURWELL CLOSE 9 0 0 9 25 0 0 0 25 CAMPION WAY 23 0 0 23 64 0 0 0 64 CHADWICK TERRACE 3 0 0 3 4 0 0 0 4 COLUMBINE CLOSE 12 0 0 12 21 0 0 0 21 COTTAGE WALK 12 0 0 12 26 0 0 0 26 Page 90 CROWSHAW DRIVE 49 0 0 49 98 0 0 0 98 DAFFODIL CLOSE 14 0 0 14 25 0 1 (4.00%) 0 24 (-4.00%) DAHLIA CLOSE 13 0 0 13 23 0 0 0 23 DELL ROAD 37 0 0 37 51 0 2 (3.92%) 0 49 (-3.92%) DUFFINS CLOSE 24 0 0 24 39 0 0 0 39 EARNSHAW AVENUE 14 0 0 14 30 0 1 (3.33%) 0 29 (-3.33%) FOXGLOVE COURT 52 0 0 52 93 0 0 0 93 GLENAVON DRIVE 25 0 0 25 44 0 0 0 44 HAREBELL CLOSE 26 0 0 26 48 0 1 (2.08%) 0 47 (-2.08%) HARRIDGE AVENUE 41 0 0 41 85 0 0 0 85 HARRIDGE BANK 4 0 0 4 7 0 0 0 7 HARRIDGE STREET 10 0 0 10 18 0 0 0 18 HARWIN CLOSE 15 0 0 15 33 0 0 0 33 HEALD CLOSE 21 0 0 21 54 0 0 0 54 HEALD COTTAGES 2 0 0 2 3 0 0 0 3 HEALD DRIVE 16 0 0 16 43 0 1 (2.33%) 0 42 (-2.33%) HEALEY AVENUE 5 0 0 5 9 0 0 0 9 HEALEY DELL 9 0 0 9 18 0 0 0 18 HEALEY HALL MEWS 3 0 0 3 5 0 0 0 5 QUARRY VIEW, HEALEY LANE 3 0 0 3 7 0 0 0 7 HEALEY STONES 8 0 0 8 15 0 0 0 15 HILLKIRK DRIVE 14 0 0 14 36 0 0 0 36 HILLSIDE WALK 47 0 0 47 96 0 0 0 96

ELECSTAT - Elector Statistics by Area/PD/Street Page: 32 Elector Stttc  reStreet

including other electors Printed: 28 June 2011 o e Elector Street etl  !rt ##e# to elete#( rre't  !rt ##e# to elete# &&lc't ( rre't  l"e# $e%ter  l"e# $e%ter e'#'%

AA - HILLSTONE AVENUE 39 0 0 39 79 0 2 (2.53%) 0 77 (-2.53%) HOLBECK AVENUE 12 0 0 12 26 0 0 0 26 HOLSTEIN AVENUE 48 0 0 48 74 0 1 (1.35%) 0 73 (-1.35%) HONEYSUCKLE WAY 34 0 0 34 37 0 3 (8.11%) 0 34 (-8.11%) JUDITH STREET 20 0 0 20 34 0 1 (2.94%) 0 33 (-2.94%) LEAF TERRACE 2 0 0 2 4 0 0 0 4 LOWER HEALEY 10 0 0 10 18 0 0 0 18 LOWERFOLD CLOSE 7 0 0 7 14 0 0 0 14 LOWERFOLD CRESCENT 14 0 0 14 34 0 0 0 34 LOWERFOLD DRIVE 28 0 0 28 72 0 0 0 72 LOWERFOLD WAY 13 0 0 13 38 0 0 0 38 LYTHAM STREET 12 0 0 12 17 0 0 0 17 Page 91 GANDY LANE, MIDDLE HEALEY 2 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 2 MIDDLE HEALEY 3 0 0 3 6 0 0 0 6 MOUNTSIDE VIEW 24 0 0 24 24 1 (4.17%) 1 (4.17%) 0 24 OFF ROAD LANE 3 0 0 3 4 0 0 0 4 ORCHID WAY 4 0 0 4 4 0 0 0 4 OTHER ELECTORS 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 2 OVERDELL DRIVE 30 0 0 30 57 0 1 (1.75%) 0 56 (-1.75%) PATON STREET 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 2 PATTISON CLOSE 8 0 0 8 16 0 0 0 16 QUARRY HILL 5 0 0 5 7 0 0 0 7 ROAD LANE 5 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 SHAWCLOUGH CLOSE 7 0 0 7 14 0 0 0 14 SHAWCLOUGH DRIVE 11 0 0 11 23 0 0 0 23 SHAWCLOUGH ROAD 54 0 0 54 108 0 1 (0.93%) 0 107 (-0.93%) SHAWCLOUGH WAY 137 0 0 137 262 1 (0.38%) 3 (1.15%) 0 260 (-0.76%) ST WILFREDS DRIVE 16 0 0 16 33 0 0 0 33 SYDENHAM TERRACE 6 0 0 6 9 0 0 0 9 THE FLASH 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 THE HARRIDGE 9 0 0 9 18 1 (5.56%) 0 0 19 (5.56%) THRUM HALL LANE, THE SPINNEY 2 0 0 2 5 0 0 0 5 THE WINDRUSH 40 0 0 40 91 0 0 0 91 THRUM FOLD 9 0 0 9 16 0 0 0 16

ELECSTAT - Elector Statistics by Area/PD/Street Page: 33 Elector Stttc  reStreet

including other electors Printed: 28 June 2011 o e Elector Street etl  !rt ##e# to elete#( rre't  !rt ##e# to elete# &&lc't ( rre't  l"e# $e%ter  l"e# $e%ter e'#'%

AA - THRUM HALL LANE 13 0 0 13 19 0 0 0 19 TOAD LEACH LANE 2 0 0 2 6 0 0 0 6 TULIP GROVE 29 0 0 29 53 0 0 0 53 WHAM BOTTOM LANE 9 0 0 9 17 0 0 0 17 WHITE HILL CLOSE 15 0 0 15 42 0 0 0 42 TURNERS PLACE, 433 WHITWORTH 14 0 0 14 7 0 0 0 7 ROAD WHITWORTH ROAD 165 0 0 165 270 0 1 (0.37%) 0 269 (-0.37%) STRETFORD PLACE, WHITWORTH 2 0 0 2 4 0 0 0 4 ROAD TURNERS PLACE, WHITWORTH 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Page 92 ROAD 6otl 7or 8  9 01@23 ) ) 01@23 A1430 3 B)C0)DE A0 B)CFADE ) A1403 B9)C20DE

AB - BARNFIELD LANE 9 0 0 9 25 0 2 (8.00%) 0 23 (-8.00%) BERNARD STREET 14 0 0 14 29 0 0 0 29 BINNS NOOK ROAD 14 0 0 14 27 0 0 0 27 BOND STREET 9 0 0 9 16 0 0 0 16 BOWLERS WALK 19 0 0 19 45 0 0 0 45 BUCKLEY FARM LANE 2 0 0 2 3 0 0 0 3 BUCKLEY PASTURES, HEY BOTTOM 2 0 0 2 5 0 0 0 5 L BUCKLEY ROAD 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 BUCKLEY TERRACE 6 0 0 6 8 0 0 0 8 CALVERLEY WAY 8 0 0 8 17 0 3 (17.65%) 0 14 (-17.65%) CARLISLE STREET 11 0 0 11 16 0 0 0 16 CHATSWORTH STREET 30 0 0 30 45 0 0 0 45 COPTROD HEAD CLOSE 5 0 0 5 13 0 0 0 13 CROSBY STREET 23 0 0 23 46 0 0 0 46 CROSS LEES 5 0 0 5 7 1 (14.29%) 0 0 8 (14.29%) DEWHIRST ROAD 89 0 0 89 156 3 (1.92%) 3 (1.92%) 0 156 DEWHIRST WAY 7 0 0 7 15 0 1 (6.67%) 0 14 (-6.67%) FERGUSON GARDENS 16 0 0 16 28 0 0 0 28 FIELDHOUSE ROAD 2 0 0 2 3 0 0 0 3 GALE STREET 97 0 0 97 167 0 1 (0.60%) 0 166 (-0.60%)

ELECSTAT - Elector Statistics by Area/PD/Street Page: 34 Elector Stttc  reStreet

including other electors Printed: 28 June 2011 o e Elector Street etl  !rt ##e# to elete#( rre't  !rt ##e# to elete# &&lc't ( rre't  l"e# $e%ter  l"e# $e%ter e'#'%

AB - GLEN GARDENS 18 0 0 18 27 0 1 (3.70%) 0 26 (-3.70%) HEY BOTTOM LANE 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 2 HIGHCROFT WAY 31 0 0 31 62 0 1 (1.61%) 0 61 (-1.61%) ISABELLA STREET 24 0 0 24 35 0 0 0 35 JEFFERSON WAY 23 0 0 23 35 0 0 0 35 JOY STREET 73 0 0 73 100 0 3 (3.00%) 0 97 (-3.00%) LEYTON STREET 25 0 0 25 43 2 (4.65%) 1 (2.33%) 0 44 (2.33%) MIDDLE HILL 10 0 0 10 20 0 2 (10.00%) 0 18 (-10.00%) MILL NOOK 15 0 0 15 28 0 1 (3.57%) 0 27 (-3.57%) NANTWICH AVENUE 6 0 0 6 9 0 0 0 9 NETLEY AVENUE 18 0 0 18 32 0 0 0 32 NEWARK SQUARE, NEWARK ROAD 8 0 0 8 14 0 0 0 14 Page 93 NEWARK ROAD 99 0 0 99 173 1 (0.58%) 3 (1.73%) 0 171 (-1.16%) NEWLANDS AVENUE 56 0 0 56 109 0 0 0 109 NEWLANDS CLOSE 19 0 0 19 23 0 0 0 23 NICK ROAD LANE 2 0 0 2 6 0 0 0 6 NOOK FARM AVENUE 26 0 0 26 45 0 0 0 45 NOOK SIDE 3 0 0 3 8 0 0 0 8 NOOK TERRACE 11 0 0 11 19 0 1 (5.26%) 0 18 (-5.26%) NORTON ROAD 81 0 0 81 164 0 1 (0.61%) 0 163 (-0.61%) ODDIES YARD 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 OTHER ELECTORS 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 (100.00%) 0 0 (-100.00%) OVERFIELD WAY 7 0 0 7 17 0 0 0 17 PAVILION CLOSE 11 0 0 11 21 0 0 0 21 POOT HALL 7 0 0 7 10 0 0 0 10 POT HOUSE LANE 8 0 0 8 25 0 0 0 25 RINGLOWS LANE 3 0 0 3 8 0 0 0 8 RYDINGS LANE 5 0 0 5 14 0 2 (14.29%) 0 12 (-14.29%) SCARR DRIVE 39 0 0 39 54 0 0 0 54 FIELDHOUSE NURSING HOME, 1 0 0 1 21 0 1 (4.76%) 0 20 (-4.76%) SPINNERS GREEN SPINNERS GREEN 9 0 0 9 24 0 0 0 24 SYKE LANE 7 0 0 7 12 0 0 0 12 SYKE ROAD 94 0 0 94 170 0 4 (2.35%) 0 166 (-2.35%) WAINGAP RISE 58 0 0 58 109 0 0 0 109

ELECSTAT - Elector Statistics by Area/PD/Street Page: 35 Elector Stttc  reStreet

including other electors Printed: 28 June 2011 o e Elector Street etl  !rt ##e# to elete#( rre't  !rt ##e# to elete# &&lc't ( rre't  l"e# $e%ter  l"e# $e%ter e'#'%

AB - WHITWORTH ROAD 29 0 0 29 36 0 0 0 36 GALE COURT, WHITWORTH ROAD 10 0 0 10 14 0 0 0 14 WOOD HEY GROVE 62 0 0 62 124 0 1 (0.81%) 0 123 (-0.81%) WOODLAND STREET 2 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 2 6otl 7or 8 G 9 01AFA ) ) 01AFA A1A55 F B)C30DE 33 B0CHHDE ) A1A2A B90C0HDE

AC - ALICIA COURT, ALICIA DRIVE 5 0 0 5 9 0 0 0 9 ALICIA DRIVE 26 0 0 26 54 0 0 0 54 ASHMOUNT DRIVE 40 0 0 40 75 0 0 0 75 AUGUSTA CLOSE 49 0 0 49 106 0 0 0 106

Page 94 AUGUSTA STREET 2 0 0 2 4 0 0 0 4 BAMFORD PLACE 3 0 0 3 6 0 0 0 6 BELMONT WAY 47 0 0 47 145 0 1 (0.69%) 0 144 (-0.69%) BENCH CARR 27 0 0 27 47 0 0 0 47 BENTMEADOWS 42 0 0 42 58 0 0 0 58 THE OLD MANOR, BENTMEADOWS 10 0 0 10 7 0 0 0 7 CRONKEYSHAW AVENUE 22 0 0 22 62 0 0 0 62 DEW MEADOW CLOSE 19 0 0 19 29 2 (6.90%) 0 0 31 (6.90%) FALINGE MANOR MEWS, FALINGE 16 0 0 16 24 0 2 (8.33%) 0 22 (-8.33%) ROAD FALINGE MANOR NEWS, FALINGE 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 2 ROAD FALINGE ROAD 4 0 0 4 11 0 0 0 11 FURTHER HEIGHTS ROAD 12 0 0 12 18 0 0 0 18 HEADLANDS STREET 3 0 0 3 6 0 0 0 6 HEIGHTS AVENUE 87 0 0 87 173 0 0 0 173 HEIGHTS CLOSE 5 0 0 5 9 0 0 0 9 HEIGHTS LANE 35 0 0 35 72 2 (2.78%) 0 0 74 (2.78%) HOLTS TERRACE 9 0 0 9 12 0 0 0 12 LARK HILL PLACE 5 0 0 5 3 0 0 0 3 MIZZY ROAD 55 0 0 55 122 0 2 (1.64%) 0 120 (-1.64%) MOUNTSIDE CLOSE 18 0 0 18 30 0 0 0 30 ONE ASH CLOSE 11 0 0 11 20 0 0 0 20 OTHER ELECTORS 1 0 0 1 2 0 1 (50.00%) 0 1 (-50.00%)

ELECSTAT - Elector Statistics by Area/PD/Street Page: 36 Elector Stttc  reStreet

including other electors Printed: 28 June 2011 o e Elector Street etl  !rt ##e# to elete#( rre't  !rt ##e# to elete# &&lc't ( rre't  l"e# $e%ter  l"e# $e%ter e'#'%

AC - JACOB BRIGHT MEWS, WHITWORTH 48 0 0 48 62 1 (1.61%) 0 0 63 (1.61%) ROAD WHITWORTH ROAD 21 0 0 21 43 1 (2.33%) 0 0 44 (2.33%) WOODFIELD AVENUE 14 0 0 14 32 0 0 0 32 6otl 7or 8 ( 9 23F ) ) 23F 01AH3 2 B)CH5DE 2 B)CH5DE ) 01AH3 B)C))DE

AD - BASSETT CLOSE 7 0 0 7 10 0 0 0 10 BASSETT GARDENS 16 0 0 16 22 0 0 0 22 BASSETT WAY 12 0 0 12 19 0 0 0 19 BENTLEY MEWS 10 0 0 10 16 0 0 0 16 BENTLEY STREET 54 0 0 54 66 0 0 0 66

Page 95 BLACKTHORN CLOSE 56 0 0 56 102 0 0 0 102 BLACKTHORN MEWS 9 0 0 9 14 0 0 0 14 BRADLEY SMITHY CLOSE 32 0 0 32 60 0 1 (1.67%) 0 59 (-1.67%) BROADLEA GROVE 6 0 0 6 11 0 1 (9.09%) 0 10 (-9.09%) CLARENCE STREET 26 0 0 26 37 0 0 0 37 DELLSIDE WAY 27 0 0 27 60 0 1 (1.67%) 0 59 (-1.67%) EDWIN WAUGH GARDENS 16 0 0 16 23 1 (4.35%) 1 (4.35%) 0 23 FALINGE FOLD 11 0 0 11 22 0 0 0 22 FALINGE ROAD 7 0 0 7 11 0 0 0 11 FALLOWFIELD DRIVE 77 0 0 77 141 0 2 (1.42%) 0 139 (-1.42%) FLETTON CLOSE 7 0 0 7 15 0 0 0 15 FLETTON MEWS 12 0 0 12 30 0 0 0 30 FOOT MILL CRESCENT 20 0 0 20 51 0 0 0 51 FOOT WOOD CRESCENT 39 0 0 39 98 0 0 0 98 FOREST VIEW 17 0 0 17 38 0 0 0 38 GARDEN ROW 4 0 0 4 5 0 0 0 5 GLENDEN FOOT 12 0 0 12 15 0 0 0 15 GREAT LEE WALK 34 0 0 34 41 0 1 (2.44%) 0 40 (-2.44%) GREAT LEE 8 0 0 8 8 0 0 0 8 HAWLEY GREEN 17 0 0 17 26 0 0 0 26 HEIGHTS LANE 3 0 0 3 13 0 0 0 13 HOLLOW BROOK WAY 17 0 0 17 33 0 0 0 33 HOLLOWS FARM AVENUE 14 0 0 14 31 0 0 0 31

ELECSTAT - Elector Statistics by Area/PD/Street Page: 37 Elector Stttc  reStreet

including other electors Printed: 28 June 2011 o e Elector Street etl  !rt ##e# to elete#( rre't  !rt ##e# to elete# &&lc't ( rre't  l"e# $e%ter  l"e# $e%ter e'#'%

AD - JOSEPH STREET 11 0 0 11 17 0 0 0 17 KILN WALK 17 0 0 17 35 0 0 0 35 LEASIDE CLOSE 12 0 0 12 17 0 0 0 17 MABEL STREET 7 0 0 7 15 0 0 0 15 NEW STREET 25 0 0 25 41 0 2 (4.88%) 0 39 (-4.88%) OTHER ELECTORS 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 2 OXFORD WAY 10 0 0 10 17 0 0 0 17 ROPEFIELD WAY 12 0 0 12 23 0 0 0 23 RUDMAN STREET 9 0 0 9 18 0 0 0 18 SHAWCLOUGH RISE 3 0 0 3 4 0 0 0 4 SHAWCLOUGH ROAD 58 0 0 58 95 2 (2.11%) 1 (1.05%) 0 96 (1.05%) Page 96 SIEBERS BANK, SHAWCLOUGH 3 0 0 3 4 0 0 0 4 ROAD STOCK CLOSE 20 0 0 20 40 0 0 0 40 SUN BANK CLOSE 10 0 0 10 22 0 1 (4.55%) 0 21 (-4.55%) SWEETBRIAR CLOSE 12 0 0 12 26 0 0 0 26 SWEETBRIAR LANE 3 0 0 3 4 0 0 0 4 THRUM HALL LANE 29 0 0 29 50 0 0 0 50 TINTERN AVENUE 16 0 0 16 18 1 (5.56%) 1 (5.56%) 0 18 TURNPIKE CLOSE 31 0 0 31 20 4 (20.00%) 0 0 24 (20.00%) TWINEGATE 25 0 0 25 56 0 1 (1.79%) 0 55 (-1.79%) WATSON GARDENS 25 0 0 25 31 0 0 0 31 WOODBRIDGE GARDENS 11 0 0 11 23 0 0 0 23 WORRALL STREET 7 0 0 7 11 0 0 0 11 6otl 7or 8  9 4AF ) ) 4AF 012)F 5 B)C@)DE 03 B)C50DE ) 012)A B9)C30DE EIEV H1344 ) ) H1344 51)24 AH B)C3)DE F3 B)C4)DE ) 51)A) B9)C20DE

ELECSTAT - Elector Statistics by Area/PD/Street Page: 38 Elector Stttc  reStreet

including other electors Printed: 28 June 2011 o e Elector Street etl  !rt ##e# to elete#( rre't  !rt ##e# to elete# &&lc't ( rre't  l"e# $e%ter  l"e# $e%ter e'#'%

MA - ARAGON DRIVE 38 0 0 38 64 0 3 (4.69%) 0 61 (-4.69%) BARNET COURT 30 0 0 30 34 0 0 0 34 BELGRAVE STREET 6 0 0 6 8 0 2 (25.00%) 0 6 (-25.00%) BOLEYN COURT 29 0 0 29 44 0 0 0 44 CARTRIDGE STREET 3 0 0 3 5 0 2 (40.00%) 0 3 (-40.00%) CHESTNUT GARDENS 11 0 0 11 23 0 0 0 23 CLEVES COURT 20 0 0 20 31 0 0 0 31 CLIFTON CLOSE 16 0 0 16 23 0 0 0 23 COOMASSIE STREET 21 0 0 21 34 0 0 0 34 COVERDALE CLOSE 19 0 0 19 29 1 (3.45%) 0 0 30 (3.45%) CRANMER COURT 25 0 0 25 35 0 0 0 35 DENTON STREET 12 0 0 12 21 0 0 0 21 Page 97 EGERTON CRESCENT 7 0 0 7 19 0 0 0 19 EGERTON STREET 99 0 0 99 158 0 1 (0.63%) 0 157 (-0.63%) GROSVENOR STREET 13 0 0 13 22 0 0 0 22 HIND HILL STREET 25 0 0 25 39 0 2 (5.13%) 0 37 (-5.13%) LYTHAM DRIVE 68 0 0 68 117 0 0 0 117 OTHER ELECTORS 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 PILSWORTH ROAD 17 0 0 17 22 0 2 (9.09%) 0 20 (-9.09%) SEYMOUR STREET 8 0 0 8 8 0 1 (12.50%) 0 7 (-12.50%) TUDOR COURT, SEYMOUR STREET 1 0 0 1 3 0 1 (33.33%) 0 2 (-33.33%) TOWER STREET 31 0 0 31 36 1 (2.78%) 0 0 37 (2.78%) WILTON GROVE 20 0 0 20 32 0 0 0 32 WOLSEY STREET 51 0 0 51 103 0 0 0 103 6otl 7or 8 T 9 @F0 ) ) @F0 40) A B)CAADE 0H B0C@HDE ) 545 B90C3ADE

MB - ALEXANDRA STREET 21 0 0 21 28 0 0 0 28 ASHWORTH STREET 28 0 0 28 42 0 0 0 42 BANK'S CROFT 6 0 0 6 11 0 0 0 11 BIRKDALE CLOSE 7 0 0 7 17 0 0 0 17 BUTTERMERE AVENUE 25 0 0 25 48 0 0 0 48 CONISTON GROVE 18 0 0 18 34 0 0 0 34 DERWENT AVENUE 45 0 0 45 96 0 3 (3.13%) 0 93 (-3.13%) DORCHESTER GROVE 32 0 0 32 72 0 0 0 72

ELECSTAT - Elector Statistics by Area/PD/Street Page: 39 Elector Stttc  reStreet

including other electors Printed: 28 June 2011 o e Elector Street etl  !rt ##e# to elete#( rre't  !rt ##e# to elete# &&lc't ( rre't  l"e# $e%ter  l"e# $e%ter e'#'%

MB - FARM STREET 20 0 0 20 30 0 0 0 30 GLENEAGLES AVENUE 13 0 0 13 24 0 0 0 24 GLOUCESTER AVENUE 43 0 0 43 85 0 0 0 85 GOODEN STREET 8 0 0 8 18 0 0 0 18 GRASMERE AVENUE 48 0 0 48 77 0 2 (2.60%) 0 75 (-2.60%) GRUNDY STREET 19 0 0 19 34 0 0 0 34 HONITON CLOSE 33 0 0 33 45 0 0 0 45 HOPWOOD AVENUE 41 0 0 41 83 0 1 (1.20%) 0 82 (-1.20%) ISHERWOOD STREET 8 0 0 8 12 0 0 0 12 KENDAL CLOSE 12 0 0 12 13 0 0 0 13 LINKS ROAD 35 0 0 35 65 0 0 0 65 Page 98 BEECH HOUSE, MANCHESTER ROAD 1 0 0 1 13 0 0 0 13 HIGHFIELD HOUSE REST HOME, 1 0 0 1 22 0 0 0 22 MANCHESTER ROAD HOLLY BANK, MANCHESTER ROAD 1 0 0 1 16 0 2 (12.50%) 0 14 (-12.50%) HOPWOOD MANOR, 126/128, 16 0 0 16 23 0 0 0 23 MANCHESTER ROAD MANCHESTER ROAD 32 0 0 32 80 2 (2.50%) 1 (1.25%) 0 81 (1.25%) GLENEAGLES AVENUE, MELLERTS 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 PLACE NEWBURY GROVE 36 0 0 36 67 0 0 0 67 NEWHOUSE ROAD 71 0 0 71 165 0 2 (1.21%) 0 163 (-1.21%) OTHER ELECTORS 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 PILSWORTH ROAD 2 0 0 2 4 0 0 0 4 PROSPECT STREET 49 0 0 49 93 0 0 0 93 RYDAL GROVE 22 0 0 22 42 0 0 0 42 SALISBURY AVENUE 47 0 0 47 99 0 0 0 99 SHAFTSBURY DRIVE 102 0 0 102 226 0 0 0 226 SIDDALL STREET 21 0 0 21 33 0 1 (3.03%) 0 32 (-3.03%) SNOWDEN STREET 2 0 0 2 3 0 0 0 3 SPRINGFIELD CLOSE 24 0 0 24 27 3 (11.11%) 0 0 30 (11.11%) SUNNINGDALE DRIVE 26 0 0 26 58 0 0 0 58 THE WOODLANDS 5 0 0 5 13 0 0 0 13 ULLSWATER GROVE 16 0 0 16 26 0 0 0 26 WALTON CLOSE 26 0 0 26 29 0 0 0 29

ELECSTAT - Elector Statistics by Area/PD/Street Page: 40 Elector Stttc  reStreet

including other electors Printed: 28 June 2011 o e Elector Street etl  !rt ##e# to elete#( rre't  !rt ##e# to elete# &&lc't ( rre't  l"e# $e%ter  l"e# $e%ter e'#'%

MB - WALTON STREET 35 0 0 35 57 0 0 0 57 WENTWORTH AVENUE 13 0 0 13 34 0 0 0 34 WINCHESTER AVENUE 18 0 0 18 36 0 0 0 36 6otl 7or 8 TG 9 01)3) ) ) 01)3) A1))A @ B)CA@DE 0A B)C2)DE ) 0144@ B9)C3@DE

MC - ARNOLD AVENUE 17 0 0 17 29 0 1 (3.45%) 0 28 (-3.45%) BADER DRIVE 51 0 0 51 104 0 1 (0.96%) 0 103 (-0.96%) BAKER STREET 2 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 2 BARLOW STREET 8 0 0 8 11 0 0 0 11 BIGGIN GARDENS 9 0 0 9 17 0 0 0 17 BRACKEN CLOSE 11 0 0 11 26 0 1 (3.85%) 0 25 (-3.85%)

Page 99 BYNG STREET 27 0 0 27 48 0 0 0 48 CANAL STREET 37 0 0 37 56 0 1 (1.79%) 0 55 (-1.79%) CHARLES STREET 18 0 0 18 31 0 0 0 31 CHURCHILL CLOSE 11 0 0 11 28 0 0 0 28 COLLOP DRIVE 15 0 0 15 31 0 0 0 31 COPTHORNE CLOSE 14 0 0 14 31 0 0 0 31 CORONATION AVENUE 18 0 0 18 31 0 0 0 31 DOCTOR FOLD LANE 10 0 0 10 25 0 0 0 25 STOCK NOOK, DOCTOR FOLD LANE 5 0 0 5 9 0 0 0 9 EAST CHURCH WAY 18 0 0 18 0 0 0 0 0 EXCELSIOR GARDENS 16 0 0 16 30 0 1 (3.33%) 0 29 (-3.33%) FOLEY GARDENS 22 0 0 22 35 0 0 0 35 GLAMIS AVENUE 80 0 0 80 143 2 (1.40%) 1 (0.70%) 0 144 (0.70%) GREEN LANE 2 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 2 GREENMOUNT DRIVE 15 0 0 15 20 0 1 (5.00%) 0 19 (-5.00%) GREGGE STREET 50 0 0 50 85 0 0 0 85 SANDPITS FARM, GREGGE STREET 1 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 3 HARESHILL ROAD 10 0 0 10 20 0 0 0 20 HEATHER CLOSE 12 0 0 12 28 0 0 0 28 HENDON GROVE 4 0 0 4 6 0 0 0 6 HOPWOOD COURT 6 0 0 6 8 0 0 0 8 HOPWOOD HALL FARM 1 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 3 HORNCHURCH COURT 29 0 0 29 60 0 0 0 60

ELECSTAT - Elector Statistics by Area/PD/Street Page: 41 Elector Stttc  reStreet

including other electors Printed: 28 June 2011 o e Elector Street etl  !rt ##e# to elete#( rre't  !rt ##e# to elete# &&lc't ( rre't  l"e# $e%ter  l"e# $e%ter e'#'%

MC - JACKMAN AVENUE 7 0 0 7 16 0 0 0 16 KENLEY DRIVE 18 0 0 18 33 0 0 0 33 HOPE COTTAGE, LANE END 1 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 3 LANE END 5 0 0 5 11 0 0 0 11 LENTEN GROVE 50 0 0 50 121 0 0 0 121 LEY DRIVE 11 0 0 11 22 0 0 0 22 LOCK CLOSE 48 0 0 48 66 2 (3.03%) 2 (3.03%) 0 66 LORRAINE CLOSE 9 0 0 9 15 0 0 0 15 MAGDALA STREET 18 0 0 18 30 1 (3.33%) 0 0 31 (3.33%) BURNELL COURT, MANCHESTER 42 0 0 42 42 0 0 0 42 Page 100 ROAD MANCHESTER ROAD 88 0 0 88 148 0 0 0 148 MARLBOROUGH STREET 45 0 0 45 73 0 0 0 73 MAY STREET 7 0 0 7 10 0 0 0 10 MERCERS ROAD 15 0 0 15 33 0 1 (3.03%) 0 32 (-3.03%) MIDDLETON ROAD 172 0 0 172 296 0 2 (0.68%) 0 294 (-0.68%) MOSSLAND CLOSE 9 0 0 9 20 0 0 0 20 NEWHOUSE ROAD 10 0 0 10 24 0 0 0 24 NORTHOLT FOLD 8 0 0 8 21 0 0 0 21 OAKENBANK ROAD 7 0 0 7 12 0 0 0 12 OAKLEIGH CLOSE 10 0 0 10 21 0 0 0 21 OLDBURY CLOSE 30 0 0 30 63 0 0 0 63 OTHER ELECTORS 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 (100.00%) 0 0 (-100.00%) PLAYFAIR CLOSE 6 0 0 6 15 0 0 0 15 RIBBLESDALE CLOSE 11 0 0 11 17 0 0 0 17 ROBERT STREET 8 0 0 8 10 0 0 0 10 SALTHILL AVENUE 19 0 0 19 43 0 0 0 43 SPINNINGFIELD WAY 14 0 0 14 32 0 0 0 32 SYCAMORE AVENUE 42 0 0 42 64 0 0 0 64 TANGMERE AVENUE 78 0 0 78 139 1 (0.72%) 0 0 140 (0.72%) THORNBANK CLOSE 11 0 0 11 21 0 0 0 21 TORRINGTON STREET 25 0 0 25 39 0 2 (5.13%) 0 37 (-5.13%) VICTOR STREET 9 0 0 9 17 0 0 0 17 WEST MALLING CLOSE 19 11(57.89%) 0 30 7 5 (71.43%) 0 1 12 (71.43%) WHITEHOUSE CLOSE 24 0 0 24 48 0 1 (2.08%) 0 47 (-2.08%)

ELECSTAT - Elector Statistics by Area/PD/Street Page: 42 Elector Stttc  reStreet

including other electors Printed: 28 June 2011 o e Elector Street etl  !rt ##e# to elete#( rre't  !rt ##e# to elete# &&lc't ( rre't  l"e# $e%ter  l"e# $e%ter e'#'%

MC - WHITTLE BROOK GROVE 11 0 0 11 25 0 0 0 25 WICKEN BANK 14 0 0 14 37 0 0 0 37 WINGS GROVE 15 0 0 15 27 0 0 0 27 WITHINGTON STREET 22 0 18(81.82%) 4 30 0 2 (6.67%) 0 28 (-6.67%) WORTHINGTON AVENUE 32 0 0 32 58 0 1 (1.72%) 0 57 (-1.72%) 6otl 7or 8 T( 9 01H4) 00B)CFHDE 05 B0CA0DE 01H53 A123A 00 B)CHADE 04 B)CFADE 0 A12AH B9)C3)DE

MD - DOCTOR FOLD LANE 1 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 3 OTHER ELECTORS 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 WHITTLE FOLD 3 0 0 3 11 0 0 0 11 WHITTLE LANE 6 1(16.67%) 0 7 17 0 0 0 17

Page 101 6otl 7or 8 T 9 00 0B4C)4DE ) 0A 30 ) ) ) 30 B)C))DE

ME - ABBEY ROAD 124 0 0 124 203 1 (0.49%) 3 (1.48%) 0 201 (-0.99%) BUCKFAST ROAD 12 0 0 12 25 0 0 0 25 CARRICK GARDENS 10 0 0 10 26 0 0 0 26 COOPER FOLD 43 0 0 43 71 1 (1.41%) 0 0 72 (1.41%) COOPER LANE 2 0 0 2 3 0 0 0 3 EASBY ROAD 30 0 0 30 39 0 0 0 39 GILWOOD GROVE 36 0 0 36 59 0 0 0 59 HAZELHURST DRIVE 50 0 0 50 121 0 2 (1.65%) 0 119 (-1.65%) HOLLIN LANE 64 0 0 64 117 0 1 (0.85%) 0 116 (-0.85%) HOLLIN WELL CLOSE 8 0 0 8 10 0 0 0 10 CARETAKERS HOUSE, HOPWOOD 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 2 HALL COLLEGE HOPWOOD ROAD 157 0 0 157 237 3 (1.27%) 3 (1.27%) 0 237 KIELDER HILL 20 0 0 20 36 0 0 0 36 KINGSWOOD ROAD 28 0 0 28 47 0 0 0 47 KIRKSTALL ROAD 70 0 0 70 123 0 1 (0.81%) 0 122 (-0.81%) LAWSON CLOSE 23 0 0 23 48 0 0 0 48 LYME CLOUGH WAY 52 0 0 52 99 0 2 (2.02%) 0 97 (-2.02%) HOPWOOD COURT, MOORFIELDS 81 0 0 81 99 0 6 (6.06%) 0 93 (-6.06%) OAKWAY 17 0 0 17 35 0 0 0 35 OTHER ELECTORS 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0

ELECSTAT - Elector Statistics by Area/PD/Street Page: 43 Elector Stttc  reStreet

including other electors Printed: 28 June 2011 o e Elector Street etl  !rt ##e# to elete#( rre't  !rt ##e# to elete# &&lc't ( rre't  l"e# $e%ter  l"e# $e%ter e'#'%

ME - PENROSE WALK 19 0 0 19 34 0 0 0 34 ROCHDALE ROAD 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 ROMSEY AVENUE 19 0 0 19 38 0 0 0 38 ROSE THORNS CLOSE 11 0 0 11 21 0 0 0 21 SCHOFIELD CLOSE 12 0 0 12 18 0 0 0 18 SELBY ROAD 9 0 0 9 16 0 0 0 16 STOTT LANE 3 0 0 3 7 0 0 0 7 TEWKESBURY AVENUE 10 0 0 10 17 0 0 0 17 TINTERN ROAD 120 0 0 120 207 0 1 (0.48%) 0 206 (-0.48%) HEBERS COURT, WHALLEY ROAD 36 0 0 36 39 0 2 (5.13%) 0 37 (-5.13%) Page 102 WHALLEY ROAD 93 0 0 93 145 0 0 0 145 ST AGNES CHURCH, WHALLEY 24 0 0 24 30 0 0 0 30 ROAD WINWOOD FOLD 12 0 0 12 28 0 0 0 28 WITHINGTON GREEN 3 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 3 WOODVALE, WOODSIDE CLOSE 52 0 0 52 70 0 1 (1.43%) 0 69 (-1.43%) HOPWOOD, WOODSIDE FARM 1 0 0 1 4 0 0 0 4 6otl 7or 8 TE 9 01A@H ) ) 01A@H A1)F5 @ B)CAHDE AA B0C)2DE ) A1)20 B9)C5ADE

MF - LANGLEY HOUSE, FURNESS ROAD 30 0 0 30 29 0 0 0 29 FURNESS ROAD 54 0 0 54 77 0 0 0 77 HOLLIN LANE 48 0 0 48 88 0 0 0 88 HOLLINS GREEN 34 0 0 34 39 0 0 0 39 HOLLIN HOUSE, NOWELL ROAD 16 0 0 16 15 0 0 0 15 NOWELL ROAD 44 0 0 44 69 0 1 (1.45%) 0 68 (-1.45%) NOWELL HOUSE, NOWELL ROAD 16 0 0 16 17 0 0 0 17 OTHER ELECTORS 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 PERSHORE ROAD 53 0 0 53 89 0 1 (1.12%) 0 88 (-1.12%) GLEBE HOUSE, ROCHDALE ROAD 16 0 0 16 19 0 0 0 19 NOWELL COURT, ROCHDALE ROAD 62 0 0 62 73 0 1 (1.37%) 0 72 (-1.37%) SCOUT GREEN 10 0 0 10 12 0 0 0 12 SELBY ROAD 12 0 0 12 24 0 0 0 24 SHERBOURNE ROAD 63 0 0 63 112 0 2 (1.79%) 0 110 (-1.79%)

ELECSTAT - Elector Statistics by Area/PD/Street Page: 44 Elector Stttc  reStreet

including other electors Printed: 28 June 2011 o e Elector Street etl  !rt ##e# to elete#( rre't  !rt ##e# to elete# &&lc't ( rre't  l"e# $e%ter  l"e# $e%ter e'#'%

MF - SHERBOURNE HOUSE, 16 0 0 16 14 1 (7.14%) 0 0 15 (7.14%) SHERBOURNE ROAD TEWKESBURY AVENUE 14 0 0 14 26 0 0 0 26 TORRE CLOSE 38 0 0 38 50 0 1 (2.00%) 0 49 (-2.00%) WAVERLEY ROAD 25 0 0 25 49 0 1 (2.04%) 0 48 (-2.04%) WHALLEY ROAD 17 0 1(5.88%) 16 31 0 4 (12.90%) 0 27 (-12.90%) 6otl 7or 8 T! 9 @24 ) 0 B)C05DE @25 533 0 B)C0ADE 00 B0C3ADE ) 5A3 B90CA)DE PWPP II H14A@ 0AB)CAHDE 04B)C34DE H1405 51H52 AH B)CA5DE F5 B)C4ADE 0 51H3A B9)C2HDE Page 103

ELECSTAT - Elector Statistics by Area/PD/Street Page: 45 Elector Stttc  reStreet

including other electors Printed: 28 June 2011 o e Elector Street etl  !rt ##e# to elete#( rre't  !rt ##e# to elete# &&lc't ( rre't  l"e# $e%ter  l"e# $e%ter e'#'%

BA - AINSWORTH STREET 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 ASHIA CLOSE 7 0 0 7 19 0 0 0 19 BASIL COURT, BASIL STREET 19 0 0 19 23 0 0 0 23 GRAFTON COURT, BASIL STREET 20 0 0 20 32 0 0 0 32 BERWICK STREET 35 0 0 35 83 0 1 (1.20%) 0 82 (-1.20%) BILBERRY STREET 7 0 0 7 11 0 0 0 11 BURNSIDE ROAD 4 0 0 4 12 0 0 0 12 CHANNING SQUARE 16 0 0 16 31 0 0 0 31 CHANNING STREET 21 0 0 21 34 0 0 0 34 IVEAGH COURT, CHURCH ROAD 35 0 0 35 37 0 1 (2.70%) 0 36 (-2.70%) Page 104 CHURCH ROAD 14 0 0 14 25 0 0 0 25 COTTON FOLD 12 0 0 12 16 0 0 0 16 CRAWFORD STREET 34 0 0 34 73 0 0 0 73 DAVID LEWIS CLOSE 12 0 0 12 22 0 1 (4.55%) 0 21 (-4.55%) DEEPDALE AVENUE 16 0 0 16 33 0 0 0 33 CLEMENTS COURT, ETHEL STREET 17 0 0 17 19 0 0 0 19 ETHEL COURT, ETHEL STREET 21 0 0 21 28 0 2 (7.14%) 0 26 (-7.14%) GRAFTON STREET 11 0 0 11 21 0 0 0 21 HOUGHTON CLOSE 15 0 0 15 22 0 0 0 22 CLARA GORTON COURT, JAMES 28 0 0 28 36 3 (8.33%) 1 (2.78%) 0 38 (5.56%) BUTTERWORTH STREET KINGSWAY 37 0 9(24.32%) 28 87 0 2 (2.30%) 0 85 (-2.30%) LEACH STREET 5 0 0 5 7 0 0 0 7 LYEFIELD WALK 14 0 0 14 22 0 0 0 22 MACNAUGHT STREET 3 0 0 3 7 0 0 0 7 MILLFIELD GROVE 33 0 0 33 51 2 (3.92%) 2 (3.92%) 0 51 MILNROW ROAD 35 0 0 35 63 1 (1.59%) 1 (1.59%) 0 63 SHEPHERD COURT, MILNROW ROAD 21 0 0 21 13 0 0 0 13 MORNINGSIDE CLOSE 24 0 0 24 27 1 (3.70%) 0 0 28 (3.70%) MOSS STREET 52 0 0 52 108 0 1 (0.93%) 0 107 (-0.93%) MOSS TERRACE 4 0 0 4 9 0 1 (11.11%) 0 8 (-11.11%) OLDHAM ROAD 4 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 OTHER ELECTORS 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 OULDFIELD CLOSE 20 0 0 20 16 0 2 (12.50%) 0 14 (-12.50%) PARES LAND WALK 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 2

ELECSTAT - Elector Statistics by Area/PD/Street Page: 46 Elector Stttc  reStreet

including other electors Printed: 28 June 2011 o e Elector Street etl  !rt ##e# to elete#( rre't  !rt ##e# to elete# &&lc't ( rre't  l"e# $e%ter  l"e# $e%ter e'#'%

BA - PENISTONE AVENUE 36 0 0 36 76 0 1 (1.32%) 0 75 (-1.32%) ROUGH HEY WALK 7 0 0 7 32 0 0 0 32 CHANNING COURT, ROWLAND 20 0 0 20 30 2 (6.67%) 0 0 32 (6.67%) STREET ROWLAND COURT, ROWLAND 20 0 0 20 29 0 0 0 29 STREET SARAH BUTTERWORTH STREET 18 0 0 18 22 0 1 (4.55%) 0 21 (-4.55%) SPRUCE STREET 5 0 0 5 7 0 0 0 7 ST JOHN COURT, ST JOHN DRIVE 19 0 0 19 27 0 1 (3.70%) 0 26 (-3.70%) VAVASOUR COURT, ST JOHN DRIVE 18 0 0 18 26 0 0 0 26 ST PETERS STREET 15 0 0 15 31 0 0 0 31 STAMFORD STREET 29 0 0 29 53 0 0 0 53

Page 105 STAMFORD HOUSE, STAMFORD 1 0 0 1 10 0 1 (10.00%) 0 9 (-10.00%) STREET SURMA CLOSE 35 0 0 35 93 0 0 0 93 SYKES COURT, SYKES STREET 21 0 0 21 23 0 0 0 23 THAMES STREET 28 0 0 28 53 1 (1.89%) 1 (1.89%) 0 53 LAUREL COURT, VAVASOUR WALK 17 0 0 17 27 0 2 (7.41%) 0 25 (-7.41%) WAITHLANDS ROAD 116 0 0 116 171 5 (2.92%) 1 (0.58%) 0 175 (2.34%) WENSLEY WAY 42 0 0 42 79 0 0 0 79 WINDMILL COURT, WINDMILL 19 0 0 19 29 0 1 (3.45%) 0 28 (-3.45%) STREET WITLEY ROAD 3 0 0 3 6 0 0 0 6 WORSLEY PLACE 8 0 0 8 13 1 (7.69%) 0 0 14 (7.69%) WORSLEY STREET 6 0 0 6 7 0 2 (28.57%) 0 5 (-28.57%) WRAY PLACE 32 0 0 32 31 0 2 (6.45%) 0 29 (-6.45%) WREN GREEN 16 0 0 16 21 0 0 0 21 YORK STREET 6 0 0 6 12 0 0 0 12 6otl 7or 8 G 9 01032 ) 4 B)CF4DE 010AF 0154F 02 B)C5HDE A5 B0CH5DE ) 0155@ B9)C23DE

BB - ADRIAN TERRACE 27 0 0 27 53 0 0 0 53 BELFIELD LANE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 BERTHA ROAD 43 0 0 43 88 0 0 0 88 BINGLEY ROAD 42 0 0 42 73 0 2 (2.74%) 0 71 (-2.74%) BINGLEY SQUARE 12 0 0 12 20 0 0 0 20

ELECSTAT - Elector Statistics by Area/PD/Street Page: 47 Elector Stttc  reStreet

including other electors Printed: 28 June 2011 o e Elector Street etl  !rt ##e# to elete#( rre't  !rt ##e# to elete# &&lc't ( rre't  l"e# $e%ter  l"e# $e%ter e'#'%

BB - BINGLEY TERRACE 12 0 0 12 24 0 0 0 24 HYDE PARK PLACE 2 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 1 KATHAN CLOSE 22 0 0 22 32 0 0 0 32 KENWORTHY STREET 9 0 0 9 12 0 0 0 12 KENWORTHY TERRACE 7 0 0 7 9 0 0 0 9 KINGSWAY 17 0 0 17 35 0 1 (2.86%) 0 34 (-2.86%) MARGARET AVENUE 31 0 0 31 52 0 0 0 52 MERINALL CLOSE 15 0 0 15 30 0 0 0 30 CANON FLYNN COURT, MILNROW 24 0 0 24 30 2 (6.67%) 1 (3.33%) 0 31 (3.33%) ROAD

Page 106 MILNROW ROAD 114 0 0 114 197 2 (1.02%) 0 0 199 (1.02%) MOSS AVENUE 44 0 0 44 77 4 (5.19%) 2 (2.60%) 0 79 (2.60%) NEWBOLD HALL DRIVE 109 3(2.75%) 0 112 162 2 (1.23%) 0 0 164 (1.23%) NEWBOLD HALL GARDENS 33 0 0 33 59 1 (1.69%) 0 0 60 (1.69%) NEWBOLD STREET 49 0 0 49 74 0 0 0 74 ONE COURT, NEWBOLD STREET 3 0 0 3 6 0 0 0 6 NIGHER MOSS AVENUE 9 0 0 9 21 0 0 0 21 OTHER ELECTORS 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 PALATINE STREET 38 0 0 38 60 0 0 0 60 RATHBONE STREET 45 0 0 45 75 2 (2.67%) 1 (1.33%) 0 76 (1.33%) ROSEFIELD CRESCENT 58 0 0 58 109 0 1 (0.92%) 0 108 (-0.92%) WINDSOR TERRACE 9 0 0 9 16 0 3 (18.75%) 0 13 (-18.75%) 6otl 7or 8 GG 9 FF@ 3B)C34DE ) FF5 01302 03 B)C44DE 00 B)C5HDE ) 01305 B)C0@DE

BC - ANSDELL ROAD 67 0 0 67 124 0 2 (1.61%) 0 122 (-1.61%) BIRKDALE ROAD 13 0 0 13 37 0 0 0 37 BISHOPSGATE WALK 9 0 0 9 24 0 0 0 24 BROAD LANE 14 0 0 14 32 0 0 0 32 BURNET CLOSE 7 0 0 7 13 0 0 0 13 BUXTON CRESCENT 61 0 0 61 107 0 0 0 107 DELAMERE ROAD 52 0 0 52 87 0 1 (1.15%) 0 86 (-1.15%) FURZEGATE 7 0 0 7 17 0 0 0 17 KINGSWAY 19 0 0 19 49 0 1 (2.04%) 0 48 (-2.04%) LICHFIELD TERRACE 26 0 0 26 58 0 0 0 58

ELECSTAT - Elector Statistics by Area/PD/Street Page: 48 Elector Stttc  reStreet

including other electors Printed: 28 June 2011 o e Elector Street etl  !rt ##e# to elete#( rre't  !rt ##e# to elete# &&lc't ( rre't  l"e# $e%ter  l"e# $e%ter e'#'%

BC - LOMOND TERRACE 24 0 0 24 53 1 (1.89%) 0 0 54 (1.89%) LOWER LANE 6 0 0 6 13 0 0 0 13 MALLOW CROFT 9 0 0 9 23 0 0 0 23 NESTON ROAD 48 0 0 48 85 1 (1.18%) 2 (2.35%) 0 84 (-1.18%) OTHER ELECTORS 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 2 RICHMOND CLOSE 19 0 0 19 45 0 0 0 45 ROTHESAY TERRACE 22 0 0 22 36 0 0 0 36 STIUPS LANE 25 0 0 25 50 0 0 0 50 TURF HILL ROAD 91 0 0 91 173 0 1 (0.58%) 0 172 (-0.58%) WELBECK ROAD 19 0 0 19 38 0 0 0 38 WESTON AVENUE 3 0 0 3 9 0 0 0 9 WRENBURY DRIVE 39 0 0 39 87 0 0 0 87 Page 107 6otl 7or 8 G( 9 @50 ) ) @50 0102A A B)C0FDE F B)C2)DE ) 010@F B9)CH3DE

BD - COUNT STREET 24 0 0 24 36 1 (2.78%) 2 (5.56%) 0 35 (-2.78%) CROWN GARDENS 8 0 0 8 18 0 0 0 18 CROWN STREET 62 0 0 62 97 0 1 (1.03%) 0 96 (-1.03%) ELDER STREET 28 0 0 28 55 0 0 0 55 FRANKLIN STREET 14 0 0 14 31 0 0 0 31 KINGS ROAD 34 0 0 34 63 0 0 0 63 KINGSWAY 39 0 0 39 93 0 2 (2.15%) 0 91 (-2.15%) LOCKHART STREET 2 0 0 2 4 0 0 0 4 LONSDALE AVENUE 32 0 0 32 73 0 0 0 73 MOSS MILL STREET 22 0 0 22 30 1 (3.33%) 0 0 31 (3.33%) MURIEL STREET 29 0 0 29 54 2 (3.70%) 0 0 56 (3.70%) NEWTON STREET 3 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 3 OLDHAM ROAD 19 0 0 19 37 0 0 0 37 OTHER ELECTORS 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 PERCY STREET 41 0 0 41 67 0 2 (2.99%) 0 65 (-2.99%) PRINCE STREET 111 0 0 111 184 0 2 (1.09%) 0 182 (-1.09%) ROYDS STREET WEST 27 0 0 27 58 0 1 (1.72%) 0 57 (-1.72%) ROYDS STREET 99 0 18(18.18%) 81 170 0 3 (1.76%) 0 167 (-1.76%) SANDFIELD ROAD 26 0 0 26 39 0 0 0 39 WOODBINE STREET EAST 43 0 0 43 72 0 0 0 72

ELECSTAT - Elector Statistics by Area/PD/Street Page: 49 Elector Stttc  reStreet

including other electors Printed: 28 June 2011 o e Elector Street etl  !rt ##e# to elete#( rre't  !rt ##e# to elete# &&lc't ( rre't  l"e# $e%ter  l"e# $e%ter e'#'%

BD - WOODBINE STREET 24 0 0 24 41 0 0 0 41 6otl 7or 8 G 9 255 ) 05 BAC2ADE 2F) 01AA@ H B)C33DE 03 B0C)2DE ) 01A02 B9)CF3DE

BE - ARGYLE STREET 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 BERKELEY DRIVE 24 0 0 24 52 0 0 0 52 BROAD LANE 32 0 0 32 58 0 0 0 58 BROOKLAND STREET 10 0 0 10 17 0 0 0 17 BUERSIL AVENUE 116 0 0 116 219 1 (0.46%) 4 (1.83%) 0 216 (-1.37%) CARPENTERS WAY 13 0 0 13 25 0 0 0 25

Page 108 CHARLOTTE STREET 84 0 0 84 155 1 (0.65%) 2 (1.29%) 0 154 (-0.65%) CHARTER STREET 21 0 0 21 43 0 0 0 43 CLARENDON STREET 55 0 0 55 89 2 (2.25%) 4 (4.49%) 0 87 (-2.25%) CROWTHER STREET 13 0 0 13 19 0 0 0 19 EXMOUTH PLACE 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 EXMOUTH STREET 2 0 0 2 3 0 0 0 3 FRASER STREET 6 0 0 6 13 0 0 0 13 KINGSWAY 12 0 0 12 23 0 0 0 23 LOWER STREET 9 0 0 9 9 0 0 0 9 OLDHAM ROAD 54 0 0 54 65 2 (3.08%) 0 0 67 (3.08%) OTHER ELECTORS 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 RETFORD AVENUE 16 0 0 16 34 0 2 (5.88%) 0 32 (-5.88%) RYELANDS CLOSE 26 0 0 26 41 0 0 0 41 SEDGLEY AVENUE 70 0 0 70 144 0 2 (1.39%) 0 142 (-1.39%) ST. JOSEPHS DRIVE 19 0 0 19 40 2 (5.00%) 1 (2.50%) 0 41 (2.50%) ST. MARYS CLOSE 13 0 0 13 22 0 1 (4.55%) 0 21 (-4.55%) STIUPS LANE 7 0 0 7 15 0 0 0 15 TURF HILL ROAD 21 0 0 21 50 0 2 (4.00%) 0 48 (-4.00%) WATKIN STREET 73 0 0 73 101 0 1 (0.99%) 0 100 (-0.99%) WESTON AVENUE 47 0 0 47 88 0 0 0 88 6otl 7or 8 GE 9 FHF ) ) FHF 013A2 5 B)C2)DE 04 B0CH3DE ) 0130@ B9)C53DE

BF - ALBERT ROYDS STREET 43 0 0 43 74 0 2 (2.70%) 0 72 (-2.70%) BELFIELD CLOSE 8 0 0 8 15 0 0 0 15

ELECSTAT - Elector Statistics by Area/PD/Street Page: 50 Elector Stttc  reStreet

including other electors Printed: 28 June 2011 o e Elector Street etl  !rt ##e# to elete#( rre't  !rt ##e# to elete# &&lc't ( rre't  l"e# $e%ter  l"e# $e%ter e'#'%

BF - BELFIELD LANE 38 0 0 38 70 0 0 0 70 BELFIELD OLD ROAD 12 0 0 12 22 0 0 0 22 BELFIELD ROAD 94 0 0 94 148 0 0 0 148 BESWICKE ROYDS STREET 65 0 0 65 107 0 0 0 107 RATHBONE COURT, BESWICKE 1 0 0 1 5 0 0 0 5 ROYDS STREET BURCHALL FIELD 11 0 0 11 27 0 0 0 27 CLOVER VIEW 12 0 0 12 22 0 0 0 22 CROXTON AVENUE 116 0 0 116 213 0 0 0 213 DALE STREET 16 0 0 16 26 0 0 0 26 ECLIPSE CLOSE 22 0 0 22 41 1 (2.44%) 0 0 42 (2.44%) GIBSON STREET 9 0 0 9 24 0 0 0 24 Page 109 HIGHER WHEAT LANE 23 0 0 23 40 0 2 (5.00%) 0 38 (-5.00%) LISKEARD CLOSE 12 0 0 12 14 0 0 0 14 LOWER WHEAT END 18 0 0 18 34 0 0 0 34 MILLOM CLOSE 20 0 0 20 17 0 0 0 17 NEWBOLD MOSS 19 0 0 19 29 0 1 (3.45%) 0 28 (-3.45%) NEWFIELD CLOSE 12 0 0 12 20 0 0 0 20 NURSERY GARDENS 8 0 0 8 13 0 0 0 13 OTHER ELECTORS 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 RESERVOIR STREET 39 0 0 39 97 1 (1.03%) 0 0 98 (1.03%) SAMSON STREET 13 0 0 13 22 0 0 0 22 STANNEY BROOK CLOSE 44 0 0 44 77 1 (1.30%) 0 0 78 (1.30%) THORNBUSH WAY 24 0 0 24 35 0 0 0 35 TOLLGATE WAY 15 0 0 15 22 0 0 0 22 UPPER HAYES CLOSE 14 0 0 14 19 0 0 0 19 WATERMAN VIEW 32 0 0 32 75 0 0 0 75 WATERSIDE LANE 20 0 0 20 46 0 3 (6.52%) 0 43 (-6.52%) WHITEWELL CLOSE 14 0 0 14 28 1 (3.57%) 0 0 29 (3.57%) WOODLANDS VIEW 13 0 0 13 22 2 (9.09%) 0 0 24 (9.09%) 6otl 7or 8 G! 9 F55 ) ) F55 01H)H 2 B)CH3DE 5 B)C@FDE ) 01H)A B9)C0HDE RSQUSWV H1F0@ 3B)C)2DE AFB)C@FDE H1240 5133) H4 B)C@4DE 52 B0C)3DE ) 51A43 B9)CHHDE

ELECSTAT - Elector Statistics by Area/PD/Street Page: 51 Elector Stttc  reStreet

including other electors Printed: 28 June 2011 o e Elector Street etl  !rt ##e# to elete#( rre't  !rt ##e# to elete# &&lc't ( rre't  l"e# $e%ter  l"e# $e%ter e'#'%

RA - ALBERT STREET 2 0 0 2 3 0 0 0 3 BLACKSTONE EDGE OLD ROAD 3 0 0 3 7 0 0 0 7 WHITTAKER HAMLET, BLACKSTONE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 EDGE OLD ROAD BOX STREET 23 0 0 23 37 0 0 0 37 BROWN STREET 13 0 0 13 21 0 0 0 21 CANAL BANK 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 2 THE CANAL WHARF, CANAL STREET 2 0 0 2 3 0 0 0 3 CHARLES STREET 18 0 9(50.00%) 9 27 0 2 (7.41%) 0 25 (-7.41%) CHURCH STREET 50 0 0 50 72 1 (1.39%) 5 (6.94%) 0 68 (-5.56%)

Page 110 RIVERSIDE NURSING HOME, 1 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 3 CHURCH STREET EASTWOOD STREET 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 GARDEN MEWS 10 0 0 10 12 0 0 0 12 GREENWOOD PLACE 2 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 1 GREENWOOD STREET 2 0 0 2 3 0 0 0 3 HARE HILL ROAD 40 0 0 40 56 0 0 0 56 HARTLEY STREET 10 0 0 10 14 0 0 0 14 HIGHER CLEGGSWOOD 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 HOLLINGWORTH FOLD 8 0 0 8 15 0 0 0 15 CARAVAN PARK, HOLLINGWORTH 34 0 0 34 47 0 1 (2.13%) 0 46 (-2.13%) LAKE HOLLINGWORTH ROAD 54 0 0 54 85 0 3 (3.53%) 0 82 (-3.53%) INGHAMS LANE 9 0 0 9 13 0 0 0 13 LONGDEN END 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 2 MORGAN STREET 5 0 0 5 5 0 0 0 5 OTHER ELECTORS 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 PEEL STREET 14 0 0 14 26 0 0 0 26 PEMBROKE STREET 2 0 0 2 3 0 0 0 3 PROSPECT STREET 3 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 3 QUEEN STREET 11 0 0 11 19 0 0 0 19 OLIVIA MAYA COURT, QUEEN 8 0 0 8 10 0 0 0 10 STREET THE BAKERY, QUEEN STREET 12 0 0 12 14 0 0 0 14 QUEENS ROAD TERRACE 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1

ELECSTAT - Elector Statistics by Area/PD/Street Page: 52 Elector Stttc  reStreet

including other electors Printed: 28 June 2011 o e Elector Street etl  !rt ##e# to elete#( rre't  !rt ##e# to elete# &&lc't ( rre't  l"e# $e%ter  l"e# $e%ter e'#'%

RA - RAILWAY STREET 14 0 0 14 22 1 (4.55%) 0 0 23 (4.55%) RAKEWOOD ROAD 27 0 0 27 46 0 0 0 46 RAKEWOOD 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 2 LITTLEBOROUGH HOME, REGENT 1 0 0 1 17 0 0 0 17 STREET REGENT STREET 5 0 0 5 10 0 0 0 10 SCHOFIELD HALL ROAD 3 0 0 3 4 0 0 0 4 SPRING VALE TERRACE 3 0 0 3 4 0 0 0 4 SYKE ROAD 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 2 VICTORIA STREET 41 0 0 41 56 1 (1.79%) 0 0 57 (1.79%) WELLINGTON STREET 15 0 0 15 28 0 1 (3.57%) 0 27 (-3.57%) WHITTAKER HAMLET 11 0 0 11 20 0 0 0 20 Page 111 WINTON STREET 13 0 0 13 27 0 0 0 27 WOOD STREET 3 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 3 6otl 7or 8 $ 9 H50 ) 4 B0C5FDE HFA FHF 3 B)CH)DE 0A B0C20DE ) F35 B90CA)DE

RB - ASHWORTH CLOSE 8 0 0 8 9 0 1 (11.11%) 0 8 (-11.11%) BALLARD CLOSE 28 0 0 28 45 0 1 (2.22%) 0 44 (-2.22%) BROOKLYN AVENUE 11 0 0 11 25 0 1 (4.00%) 0 24 (-4.00%) CALDER AVENUE 43 0 0 43 80 0 0 0 80 HEY HEAD LANE, CALDERBROOK 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 2 ROAD HEYHEAD LANE, CALDERBROOK 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 2 ROAD LOWER NEWGATE, CALDERBROOK 6 0 0 6 11 0 0 0 11 ROAD MIDDLE NEWGATE, CALDERBROOK 9 0 0 9 20 0 0 0 20 ROAD CALDERBROOK ROAD 108 0 0 108 189 0 1 (0.53%) 0 188 (-0.53%) CLAY CROFT TERRACE 3 0 0 3 5 0 0 0 5 GREENHILL, CLOUGH ROAD 6 0 0 6 11 0 0 0 11 CLOUGH ROAD 32 0 0 32 54 0 0 0 54 ERIC STREET 3 0 0 3 5 0 0 0 5 FURNESS AVENUE 16 0 0 16 33 0 0 0 33 HARE HILL COURT 14 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 0

ELECSTAT - Elector Statistics by Area/PD/Street Page: 53 Elector Stttc  reStreet

including other electors Printed: 28 June 2011 o e Elector Street etl  !rt ##e# to elete#( rre't  !rt ##e# to elete# &&lc't ( rre't  l"e# $e%ter  l"e# $e%ter e'#'%

RB - HARE HILL ROAD 23 0 0 23 41 0 0 0 41 HENDERVILLE STREET 21 0 0 21 29 0 2 (6.90%) 0 27 (-6.90%) KIRKSTALL AVENUE 18 0 0 18 43 0 1 (2.33%) 0 42 (-2.33%) LANESIDE CLOSE 30 0 0 30 42 0 0 0 42 LOMAX STREET 3 0 0 3 4 0 0 0 4 LOWER SHORE 1 0 0 1 2 1 (50.00%) 0 0 3 (50.00%) LOWER TOWNHOUSE 2 0 0 2 5 0 0 0 5 LYNDALE DRIVE 12 0 0 12 20 0 0 0 20 MELROSE AVENUE 16 0 0 16 33 0 0 0 33 MOORFIELD AVENUE 12 0 0 12 14 0 0 0 14 Page 112 MOUNT AVENUE 24 0 0 24 48 0 0 0 48 OTHER ELECTORS 1 0 0 1 3 0 1 (33.33%) 0 2 (-33.33%) SAWLEY AVENUE 14 0 0 14 23 0 1 (4.35%) 0 22 (-4.35%) SHORE ROAD 59 0 0 59 101 0 0 0 101 SPRINGFIELD AVENUE 24 0 0 24 51 0 0 0 51 TINTERN AVENUE 32 0 0 32 67 0 1 (1.49%) 0 66 (-1.49%) TOWNHOUSE 14 0 0 14 19 2 (10.53%) 0 0 21 (10.53%) TURF HOUSE CLOSE 8 0 0 8 16 0 0 0 16 TURF HOUSE 13 0 0 13 14 0 0 0 14 WELBECK AVENUE 18 0 0 18 34 0 0 0 34 WHALLEY AVENUE 88 0 0 88 136 0 3 (2.21%) 1 133 (-2.21%) WHITELEES ROAD 16 0 0 16 28 0 0 0 28 6otl 7or 8 $G 9 F35 ) ) F35 01A2H 3 B)CAHDE 03 B0C)3DE 0 01A@H B9)CF4DE

RC - BARNES MEADOWS 60 0 0 60 109 0 0 0 109 BETHEL GREEN 4 0 0 4 9 0 0 0 9 BLACKSTONE EDGE 3 0 0 3 6 0 0 0 6 CALDERBROOK ROAD 28 0 0 28 52 0 0 0 52 REAR OF HANDLE HALL BARN, 1 0 0 1 4 0 0 0 4 CALDERBROOK ROAD SUMMIT, CALDERBROOK ROAD 1 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 3 CALDERBROOK TERRACE 15 0 0 15 23 0 0 0 23 CHAPEL STREET 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 2 CHELBURN VIEW 20 0 0 20 34 0 0 0 34

ELECSTAT - Elector Statistics by Area/PD/Street Page: 54 Elector Stttc  reStreet

including other electors Printed: 28 June 2011 o e Elector Street etl  !rt ##e# to elete#( rre't  !rt ##e# to elete# &&lc't ( rre't  l"e# $e%ter  l"e# $e%ter e'#'%

RC - CLIFFE STREET 11 0 0 11 12 0 2 (16.67%) 0 10 (-16.67%) DRAKE ROAD 67 0 0 67 129 0 0 0 129 FIELDEN STREET 2 0 0 2 4 0 0 0 4 FROBISHER ROAD 16 0 0 16 31 0 0 0 31 GRENVILLE WALK 3 0 0 3 4 0 0 0 4 GROVE COTTAGES 7 0 0 7 15 0 0 0 15 HANDLE HALL 5 0 0 5 8 0 0 0 8 HAWKINS WAY 15 0 0 15 25 0 0 0 25 HIGHER CALDERBROOK ROAD 2 0 0 2 6 0 0 0 6 HIGHER CALDERBROOK 10 0 0 10 20 0 0 0 20 HOLME HOUSE STREET 10 0 0 10 20 0 0 0 20 HOLME HOUSE YARD 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 2 Page 113 CANAL VIEW HOUSE, HOLME HOUSE 3 0 0 3 2 0 0 0 2 HOLME HOUSE 3 0 0 3 5 0 0 0 5 HOLME TERRACE 6 0 0 6 8 0 0 0 8 HOLT STREET 4 0 0 4 7 0 0 0 7 HOWARD WAY 3 0 0 3 7 0 0 0 7 LONGLEY HEYS FARM 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 LOWER CALDERBROOK 9 0 0 9 17 0 1 (5.88%) 0 16 (-5.88%) MIDDLE CALDERBROOK 2 0 0 2 3 0 0 0 3 NORFOLK CLOSE 13 0 0 13 32 0 1 (3.13%) 0 31 (-3.13%) OAK TERRACE 4 0 0 4 4 0 0 0 4 OTHER ELECTORS 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 PAUL ROW 6 0 0 6 8 0 0 0 8 PENNINE VIEW 3 0 0 3 5 0 0 0 5 POLLARD GROVE 7 0 0 7 13 0 0 0 13 RALEIGH GARDENS 8 0 0 8 11 0 0 0 11 REDDY SHORE BROW 23 0 0 23 52 0 1 (1.92%) 0 51 (-1.92%) ROBERTS PASSAGE 2 0 0 2 4 0 0 0 4 ROCK NOOK 18 0 0 18 27 0 0 0 27 SALLEY STREET 10 0 0 10 17 0 0 0 17 SCHOFIELD PLACE 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 SCHOFIELD STREET 3 0 0 3 4 0 0 0 4 SHAKESPEARE CLOSE 19 0 0 19 31 1 (3.23%) 4 (12.90%) 0 28 (-9.68%)

ELECSTAT - Elector Statistics by Area/PD/Street Page: 55 Elector Stttc  reStreet

including other electors Printed: 28 June 2011 o e Elector Street etl  !rt ##e# to elete#( rre't  !rt ##e# to elete# &&lc't ( rre't  l"e# $e%ter  l"e# $e%ter e'#'%

RC - SHOTTWOOD FOLD 13 0 0 13 26 0 0 0 26 SLADEN FOLD FARM 6 0 0 6 5 0 0 0 5 SMITHY NOOK 7 0 0 7 6 0 0 0 6 TEMPLE LANE, STANSFIELD HALL 1 0 0 1 9 0 2 (22.22%) 0 7 (-22.22%) REST HO STANSFIELD HALL 8 0 0 8 20 0 0 0 20 SUMMIT 104 0 0 104 156 0 0 0 156 SYDNEY GARDENS 14 0 0 14 28 0 0 0 28 TEMPLE LANE 31 0 0 31 54 0 0 0 54 TETLOWS YARD 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 2

Page 114 TIMBERCLIFFE 48 0 0 48 89 0 0 0 89 DEANHEAD, TODMORDEN ROAD 38 0 1(2.63%) 37 73 0 3 (4.11%) 0 70 (-4.11%) GREEN CLOUGH, TODMORDEN 2 0 0 2 3 0 0 0 3 ROAD TODMORDEN ROAD 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 2 WARLAND,(WALSDEN) 4 0 0 4 8 0 0 0 8 6otl 7or 8 $( 9 F)4 ) 0 B)C0HDE F)5 01A@F 0 B)C)5DE 0H B0C00DE ) 01AHH B90C)3DE

RD - BARE HILL STREET 31 0 0 31 53 0 1 (1.89%) 0 52 (-1.89%) BINNS TERRACE 2 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 2 BLACKSTONE EDGE COURT 3 0 0 3 6 0 0 0 6 BARNFIELD, BLACKSTONE EDGE 5 0 0 5 11 0 0 0 11 OLD ROAD GATEHOUSE, BLACKSTONE EDGE 15 0 0 15 28 0 1 (3.57%) 0 27 (-3.57%) OLD ROAD HIGH PEAK, BLACKSTONE EDGE 10 0 0 10 14 0 0 0 14 OLD ROAD LYDGATE COURT, BLACKSTONE 8 0 0 8 15 0 1 (6.67%) 0 14 (-6.67%) EDGE OLD ROAD MONA CLIFFE NURSING HOME, 1 0 0 1 9 0 0 0 9 BLACKSTONE EDGE OLD ROAD MOORSIDE, BLACKSTONE EDGE 8 0 0 8 17 0 1 (5.88%) 0 16 (-5.88%) OLD ROAD BLACKSTONE EDGE OLD ROAD 36 0 0 36 65 0 0 0 65 BLACKSTONE EDGE 4 0 0 4 6 0 0 0 6 BROOK STREET 7 0 0 7 6 0 0 0 6

ELECSTAT - Elector Statistics by Area/PD/Street Page: 56 Elector Stttc  reStreet

including other electors Printed: 28 June 2011 o e Elector Street etl  !rt ##e# to elete#( rre't  !rt ##e# to elete# &&lc't ( rre't  l"e# $e%ter  l"e# $e%ter e'#'%

RD - CALDERBROOK 2 0 0 2 4 0 0 0 4 WHITFIELD FARM, CALDERBROOK 2 0 0 2 4 0 0 0 4 CARRIAGE DRIVE 9 0 0 9 18 0 0 0 18 CENTRAL AVENUE 19 0 0 19 35 0 0 0 35 CENTRE VALE CLOSE 7 0 0 7 12 0 1 (8.33%) 0 11 (-8.33%) CHAPEL HILL 6 0 0 6 11 0 0 0 11 ROCKLEY HOUSE, CHAPEL STREET 7 0 0 7 7 0 0 0 7 CHURCH STREET 10 0 0 10 5 0 0 0 5 CLEMENTS PLACE 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 2 DEARDEN STREET 22 0 0 22 37 1 (2.70%) 0 0 38 (2.70%) DURNLAW CLOSE 22 0 0 22 40 0 1 (2.50%) 0 39 (-2.50%) EALEES 14 0 0 14 27 0 0 0 27 Page 115 EALEES ROAD 18 0 0 18 28 0 0 0 28 EAST STREET 12 0 0 12 18 0 1 (5.56%) 0 17 (-5.56%) EGERTON STREET 4 0 0 4 5 0 0 0 5 ELIM STREET 3 0 0 3 6 0 0 0 6 FAIR VIEW 12 0 0 12 21 0 0 0 21 FERN GROVE 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 FERRAND ROAD 35 0 0 35 60 0 0 0 60 FLETCHERS SQUARE,BARE HILL 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 STR FOUR SEASONS REST HOME, FOUR 1 0 0 1 10 0 1 (10.00%) 0 9 (-10.00%) SEASONS GALE CLOSE 56 0 0 56 68 1 (1.47%) 3 (4.41%) 0 66 (-2.94%) GEORGE STREET 6 0 0 6 7 0 0 0 7 GORSEY BANK 4 0 0 4 9 0 0 0 9 BENT HOUSE CROFT, HALIFAX 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 ROAD HEATHER BANK, HALIFAX ROAD 8 0 0 8 17 0 0 0 17 HONRESFELD, HALIFAX ROAD 2 0 0 2 22 0 1 (4.55%) 0 21 (-4.55%) HALIFAX ROAD 102 0 0 102 190 2 (1.05%) 5 (2.63%) 0 187 (-1.58%) HALLIWELL STREET 7 0 0 7 12 0 0 0 12 HARE HILL ROAD 13 0 0 13 18 0 0 0 18 HOWARTH STREET 22 0 0 22 30 1 (3.33%) 1 (3.33%) 0 30 JERROLD STREET 8 0 0 8 9 0 0 0 9

ELECSTAT - Elector Statistics by Area/PD/Street Page: 57 Elector Stttc  reStreet

including other electors Printed: 28 June 2011 o e Elector Street etl  !rt ##e# to elete#( rre't  !rt ##e# to elete# &&lc't ( rre't  l"e# $e%ter  l"e# $e%ter e'#'%

RD - JOSEPH STREET 23 0 9(39.13%) 14 31 0 2 (6.45%) 0 29 (-6.45%) LANE FOOT FARM 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 2 LEAH STREET 4 0 0 4 7 0 0 0 7 LEE STREET 4 0 0 4 8 0 0 0 8 LIGHTOWLERS LANE 15 0 0 15 24 0 0 0 24 LIMEFIELD TERRACE 9 0 0 9 15 0 0 0 15 WELLINGTON TERRACE, LODGE 8 0 0 8 13 0 0 0 13 STREET LORD STREET 2 0 0 2 3 0 0 0 3 MADEN'S SQUARE,TODMORDEN 2 0 0 2 4 0 0 0 4

Page 116 ROAD MILFORD CRESCENT 11 0 0 11 18 0 0 0 18 MOORLAND STREET 7 0 0 7 10 0 0 0 10 NELSON STREET 12 0 0 12 11 0 0 0 11 NEWALL STREET 34 0 0 34 63 0 1 (1.59%) 0 62 (-1.59%) NORTH STREET 2 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 2 OAK STREET 10 0 0 10 13 0 0 0 13 HUDSONS PASSAGE, OFF 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 2 TODMORDEN ROAD OTHER ELECTORS 1 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 3 PARK ROAD 3 0 0 3 7 0 2 (28.57%) 0 5 (-28.57%) PARK VIEW 15 0 0 15 24 0 0 0 24 PHOENIX STREET 5 0 0 5 10 0 0 0 10 PHOENIX COURT, PHOENIX STREET 6 0 0 6 5 1 (20.00%) 0 0 6 (20.00%) PINE STREET 2 0 0 2 4 0 0 0 4 PIONEER STREET 8 0 0 8 11 0 0 0 11 RAKE TERRACE 10 0 0 10 17 0 0 0 17 REDLAND CLOSE 20 0 0 20 28 0 0 0 28 SALE STREET 15 0 0 15 27 0 3 (11.11%) 0 24 (-11.11%) SAXON HOUSE,WEST VIEW 17 0 0 17 18 0 0 0 18 SCHOFIELD STREET 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 2 SHORE HILL 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 SMITH STREET 8 0 0 8 11 0 0 0 11 SPENCER STREET 8 0 0 8 9 0 0 0 9 SUN DRIVE 2 0 0 2 5 0 0 0 5

ELECSTAT - Elector Statistics by Area/PD/Street Page: 58 Elector Stttc  reStreet

including other electors Printed: 28 June 2011 o e Elector Street etl  !rt ##e# to elete#( rre't  !rt ##e# to elete# &&lc't ( rre't  l"e# $e%ter  l"e# $e%ter e'#'%

RD - SUTCLIFFE STREET 12 0 0 12 20 0 0 0 20 TAYLOR TERRACE 8 0 0 8 12 0 0 0 12 CENTRE VALE, TODMORDEN ROAD 19 0 0 19 28 0 0 0 28 ELIM TERRACE, TODMORDEN ROAD 6 0 0 6 10 0 0 0 10 FERRAND LODGE, TODMORDEN 12 0 0 12 23 0 1 (4.35%) 0 22 (-4.35%) ROAD GALE, TODMORDEN ROAD 9 0 0 9 19 0 0 0 19 GLEN VIEW, TODMORDEN ROAD 7 0 0 7 11 0 0 0 11 TODMORDEN ROAD 84 0 0 84 143 1 (0.70%) 2 (1.40%) 0 142 (-0.70%) WHITFIELD BROW, TODMORDEN 12 0 0 12 19 0 0 0 19 ROAD WINGFIELD VILLAS, TODMORDEN 5 0 0 5 6 0 0 0 6

Page 117 ROAD TOWNHOUSE ROAD 24 0 0 24 36 0 0 0 36 VICTORIA STREET 24 0 0 24 37 0 0 0 37 WARLEY STREET 8 0 0 8 13 0 0 0 13 OLIVE STANDRING HOUSE, WATER 27 0 0 27 28 0 2 (7.14%) 0 26 (-7.14%) STREET WELLINGTON LODGE 15 0 0 15 24 0 0 0 24 WEST STREET 7 0 0 7 9 0 1 (11.11%) 0 8 (-11.11%) WEST VIEW 31 0 0 31 41 0 1 (2.44%) 0 40 (-2.44%) 6otl 7or 8 $ 9 010HH ) 4 B)CF4DE 0103@ 015@3 F B)C35DE 33 B0CF5DE ) 015AF B90CH)DE

RE - ABBEY DRIVE 50 0 0 50 98 2 (2.04%) 0 0 100 (2.04%) BANK CLOSE 10 0 0 10 27 0 0 0 27 BARKE STREET 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 BEECHWOOD AVENUE 29 0 0 29 50 0 0 0 50 BLYTH AVENUE 10 0 0 10 17 0 2 (11.76%) 0 15 (-11.76%) BRENTWOOD CLOSE 12 0 0 12 26 0 0 0 26 BRIDGE BANK ROAD 61 0 0 61 117 0 0 0 117 BRIDGENORTH DRIVE 13 0 0 13 25 0 0 0 25 BROADFIELD DRIVE 18 0 0 18 31 0 1 (3.23%) 0 30 (-3.23%) BROWN BANK ROAD 10 0 0 10 19 0 0 0 19 BROWN LODGE DRIVE 27 0 0 27 55 0 1 (1.82%) 0 54 (-1.82%) BROWN LODGE STREET 51 0 0 51 95 0 1 (1.05%) 0 94 (-1.05%)

ELECSTAT - Elector Statistics by Area/PD/Street Page: 59 Elector Stttc  reStreet

including other electors Printed: 28 June 2011 o e Elector Street etl  !rt ##e# to elete#( rre't  !rt ##e# to elete# &&lc't ( rre't  l"e# $e%ter  l"e# $e%ter e'#'%

RE - CHICHESTER CLOSE 50 0 0 50 100 0 0 0 100 CLEGGSWOOD AVENUE 47 0 0 47 101 0 5 (4.95%) 0 96 (-4.95%) COLERIDGE DRIVE 16 0 0 16 33 0 0 0 33 DALE VIEW 30 0 0 30 64 0 0 0 64 DERWENT DRIVE 37 0 0 37 84 0 0 0 84 EAFIELD ROAD 9 0 0 9 13 0 0 0 13 EDWARD AVENUE 10 0 0 10 21 0 0 0 21 ELM STREET 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 2 EXCELSIOR TERRACE 4 0 0 4 7 0 1 (14.29%) 0 6 (-14.29%) FAIRFAX DRIVE 14 0 0 14 30 0 0 0 30 Page 118 FIELDEN STREET 4 0 0 4 6 0 0 0 6 GARDEN CLOSE 10 0 0 10 23 0 0 0 23 GARDEN WAY 24 0 0 24 45 0 0 0 45 GREENBANK DRIVE 13 0 0 13 27 0 0 0 27 HEALD CLOSE 42 0 0 42 82 0 0 0 82 HEALD LANE 6 0 0 6 11 0 0 0 11 HENRY STREET 10 0 0 10 17 0 0 0 17 HIGHER BANK ROAD 14 0 0 14 27 0 0 0 27 HIGHER CLEGGSWOOD AVENUE 29 0 0 29 49 0 0 0 49 HIGHLANDS 18 0 0 18 39 0 0 0 39 HOLLINGWORTH LAKE 2 0 0 2 5 0 0 0 5 JOHNSTON AVENUE 4 0 0 4 8 0 0 0 8 KAY STREET 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 KNOWL VIEW 17 0 0 17 33 0 0 0 33 LAKE BANK 36 0 0 36 52 0 3 (5.77%) 0 49 (-5.77%) LAKE SIDE 13 0 0 13 19 0 0 0 19 LAURELS DRIVE 28 0 0 28 59 0 0 0 59 LEIGHTON AVENUE 23 0 0 23 42 0 0 0 42 LINCOLN DRIVE 22 0 0 22 53 0 0 0 53 CLEGGSWORTH HOUSE REST HOME 1 0 0 1 32 0 2 (6.25%) 0 30 (-6.25%) 7, LITTLE CLEGG ROAD LITTLE CLEGG ROAD 55 0 0 55 111 1 (0.90%) 0 0 112 (0.90%) LODGE BANK ROAD 17 0 0 17 41 0 0 0 41 MERLIN CLOSE 15 0 0 15 25 1 (4.00%) 0 0 26 (4.00%) MILBURY DRIVE 38 0 0 38 73 0 0 0 73

ELECSTAT - Elector Statistics by Area/PD/Street Page: 60 Elector Stttc  reStreet

including other electors Printed: 28 June 2011 o e Elector Street etl  !rt ##e# to elete#( rre't  !rt ##e# to elete# &&lc't ( rre't  l"e# $e%ter  l"e# $e%ter e'#'%

RE - MILL STREET 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 2 MILNROW ROAD 26 0 0 26 41 0 0 0 41 OAK STREET 2 0 0 2 3 0 0 0 3 OTHER ELECTORS 1 0 0 1 3 1 (33.33%) 0 0 4 (33.33%) PEANOCK LANE 3 0 0 3 6 0 0 0 6 QUEEN'S VIEW 8 0 0 8 8 0 0 0 8 ROSE AVENUE 57 0 0 57 106 0 1 (0.94%) 0 105 (-0.94%) SHAFTESBURY AVENUE 25 0 0 25 50 0 0 0 50 ELLENS PLACE, SMITHY BRIDGE 7 0 0 7 4 0 0 0 4 ROAD LAKESIDE NURSING HOME, SMITHY 1 0 0 1 21 0 4 (19.05%) 0 17 (-19.05%) BRIDGE ROAD

Page 119 SMITHY BRIDGE ROAD 117 2(1.71%) 4(3.42%) 115 183 2 (1.09%) 0 0 185 (1.09%) ROBERTS PLACE, SMITHY BRIDGE 2 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 2 ROAD WESLEY COURT, SMITHY BRIDGE 10 0 0 10 13 0 2 (15.38%) 0 11 (-15.38%) ROAD SOUTHEY CLOSE 8 0 0 8 18 0 0 0 18 STARFIELD AVENUE 11 0 0 11 24 0 0 0 24 WALMSLEY AVENUE 26 0 0 26 45 0 0 0 45 WHITTAKER DRIVE 28 0 0 28 54 0 0 0 54 WILLOW RISE 7 0 0 7 15 0 0 0 15 WOODBANK ROAD 32 0 0 32 63 0 0 0 63 WOODHEYS ROAD 4 0 0 4 7 0 0 0 7 WORDSWORTH CRESCENT 49 0 0 49 102 0 0 0 102 WRIGLEY PLACE 2 0 0 2 3 0 0 0 3 YEA FOLD 11 0 0 11 18 0 0 0 18 6otl 7or 8 $E 9 01340 AB)C0HDE H B)CA4DE 01354 A1252 F B)CA2DE A3 B)C52DE ) A12F) B9)C2)DE

RF - BRANCH ROAD FARM, BRANCH 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 2 ROAD SUNGATE, BRANCH ROAD 6 0 0 6 9 0 0 0 9 CLEGG HALL COTTAGES 4 0 0 4 9 2 (22.22%) 0 0 11 (22.22%) CLEGG HALL FARM 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 CLEGG HALL ROAD 24 0 0 24 9 0 0 0 9

ELECSTAT - Elector Statistics by Area/PD/Street Page: 61 Elector Stttc  reStreet

including other electors Printed: 28 June 2011 o e Elector Street etl  !rt ##e# to elete#( rre't  !rt ##e# to elete# &&lc't ( rre't  l"e# $e%ter  l"e# $e%ter e'#'%

RF - HOLLINGWORTH LAKE 5 0 0 5 8 0 0 0 8 LITTLE CLEGG 2 0 0 2 4 0 0 0 4 OTHER ELECTORS 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 SHAW LANE 1 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 3 6otl 7or 8 $! 9 H@ ) ) H@ H@ A BHCHHDE ) ) HF BHCHHDE IS66IEGP$PXU IRESSE H1@)5 AB)C)HDE A3B)C@0DE H1H5F F15@A A3 B)CA4DE 4@ B0CA0DE 0 F1F5) B9)C4ADE Page 120

ELECSTAT - Elector Statistics by Area/PD/Street Page: 62 Elector Stttc  reStreet

including other electors Printed: 28 June 2011 o e Elector Street etl  !rt ##e# to elete#( rre't  !rt ##e# to elete# &&lc't ( rre't  l"e# $e%ter  l"e# $e%ter e'#'%

CA - DERBY STREET 29 0 0 29 59 1 (1.69%) 2 (3.39%) 0 58 (-1.69%) DURHAM STREET 43 0 0 43 81 5 (6.17%) 0 0 86 (6.17%) EQUITABLE STREET 31 0 0 31 83 2 (2.41%) 0 0 85 (2.41%) EXETER GROVE 12 0 0 12 23 1 (4.35%) 0 0 24 (4.35%) EXETER STREET 39 0 0 39 117 0 2 (1.71%) 0 115 (-1.71%) MEAVY HOUSE, HARE STREET 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 2 HARE STREET 21 0 0 21 76 0 0 0 76 HAREFIELD AVENUE 8 0 0 8 22 0 0 0 22 HEREFORD STREET 40 0 0 40 67 1 (1.49%) 1 (1.49%) 0 67 IPSWICH STREET 16 0 0 16 39 0 0 0 39 LEICESTER STREET 9 0 0 9 19 0 1 (5.26%) 0 18 (-5.26%) MALDON STREET 37 0 0 37 79 0 1 (1.27%) 0 78 (-1.27%) Page 121 MIALL STREET 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 MILKSTONE ROAD 19 0 0 19 55 2 (3.64%) 0 0 57 (3.64%) OTHER ELECTORS 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 PIONEER STREET 15 0 0 15 26 0 0 0 26 TENNYSON STREET 20 0 0 20 37 1 (2.70%) 3 (8.11%) 0 35 (-5.41%) WHITBY STREET 7 0 0 7 13 0 0 0 13 6otl 7or 8 ( 9 3H4 ) ) 3H4 F44 03 B0C23DE 0) B0CA@DE ) 5)A B)C35DE

CB - ABINGDON CLOSE 30 0 0 30 36 1 (2.78%) 0 0 37 (2.78%) ARUNDEL AVENUE 4 0 0 4 4 0 0 0 4 ARUNDEL STREET 10 0 0 10 30 0 1 (3.33%) 0 29 (-3.33%) ASHFIELD ROAD 122 0 18(14.75%) 104 230 1 (0.43%) 3 (1.30%) 0 228 (-0.87%) ASHTON GARDENS 13 0 0 13 37 0 0 0 37 ASHTON STREET 12 0 0 12 19 0 3 (15.79%) 0 16 (-15.79%) BARCLYDE STREET 13 0 0 13 23 0 2 (8.70%) 0 21 (-8.70%) BOSWORTH SQUARE 12 0 0 12 23 0 1 (4.35%) 0 22 (-4.35%) BOSWORTH STREET 33 0 0 33 63 2 (3.17%) 0 0 65 (3.17%) CHELTENHAM STREET 27 0 0 27 49 0 0 0 49 CRAVEN GARDENS 3 0 0 3 6 1 (16.67%) 0 0 7 (16.67%) DUNSTER AVENUE 46 0 0 46 123 0 0 0 123 DUNSTERVILLE TERRACE 16 0 0 16 27 0 1 (3.70%) 0 26 (-3.70%) ELM GROVE 13 0 0 13 25 0 0 0 25

ELECSTAT - Elector Statistics by Area/PD/Street Page: 63 Elector Stttc  reStreet

including other electors Printed: 28 June 2011 o e Elector Street etl  !rt ##e# to elete#( rre't  !rt ##e# to elete# &&lc't ( rre't  l"e# $e%ter  l"e# $e%ter e'#'%

CB - GALES TERRACE 4 0 0 4 6 0 0 0 6 GRANDIDGE STREET 13 0 0 13 24 0 0 0 24 GREENROYD 16 0 0 16 39 0 1 (2.56%) 0 38 (-2.56%) HARDWICKE STREET 27 0 18(66.67%) 9 43 0 3 (6.98%) 0 40 (-6.98%) HARPER STREET 5 0 0 5 10 0 0 0 10 HENLEY TERRACE 12 0 0 12 11 0 0 0 11 HIGH BARN CLOSE 30 0 0 30 64 2 (3.13%) 0 0 66 (3.13%) JOHN ROBERTS CLOSE 14 0 0 14 30 0 0 0 30 KENSINGTON STREET 58 0 0 58 88 1 (1.14%) 1 (1.14%) 0 88 KING STREET SOUTH 2 0 0 2 5 0 0 0 5 Page 122 LANGTON TERRACE 6 0 0 6 20 0 0 0 20 LLOYD STREET 10 0 0 10 18 0 2 (11.11%) 0 16 (-11.11%) LONG HILL 44 0 0 44 89 0 0 0 89 MANCHESTER ROAD 26 0 0 26 70 0 2 (2.86%) 0 68 (-2.86%) MEREFIELD AVENUE 6 0 0 6 8 0 0 0 8 MEREFIELD STREET 45 0 0 45 96 0 3 (3.13%) 1 93 (-3.13%) MEREFIELD TERRACE 7 0 0 7 25 0 0 0 25 MULBERRY CLOSE 29 0 0 29 36 0 2 (5.56%) 0 34 (-5.56%) NEW BARN LANE 58 0 0 58 95 1 (1.05%) 1 (1.05%) 0 95 OSBORNE STREET 45 0 0 45 69 1 (1.45%) 0 0 70 (1.45%) OTHER ELECTORS 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 PROSPECT STREET 13 0 0 13 19 0 0 0 19 RIBBLE STREET 6 0 0 6 15 0 0 0 15 RUFFORD AVENUE 14 0 0 14 33 0 0 0 33 SANDBROOK WAY 1 0 0 1 2 0 2 (100.00%) 0 0 (-100.00%) SPARTHFIELD AVENUE 18 0 0 18 53 0 0 0 53 STRATFORD AVENUE 17 0 0 17 48 0 0 0 48 ULSTER AVENUE 11 0 0 11 19 0 0 0 19 VIVIAN STREET 7 0 0 7 11 0 0 0 11 WORCESTER STREET 23 0 0 23 50 0 0 0 50 6otl 7or 8 (G 9 4AA ) 32 B3C4)DE 552 01F40 0) B)C@2DE A5 B0C@2DE 0 01FF3 B90C)0DE

CC - ASHFIELD ROAD 73 0 0 73 170 2 (1.18%) 1 (0.59%) 0 171 (0.59%) AUBREY STREET 24 0 0 24 42 1 (2.38%) 1 (2.38%) 0 42

ELECSTAT - Elector Statistics by Area/PD/Street Page: 64 Elector Stttc  reStreet

including other electors Printed: 28 June 2011 o e Elector Street etl  !rt ##e# to elete#( rre't  !rt ##e# to elete# &&lc't ( rre't  l"e# $e%ter  l"e# $e%ter e'#'%

CC - BROOMFIELD SQUARE 5 0 0 5 12 0 1 (8.33%) 0 11 (-8.33%) CECIL STREET 12 0 0 12 36 0 0 0 36 CLARA STREET 15 0 0 15 29 1 (3.45%) 2 (6.90%) 0 28 (-3.45%) CLIFFORD STREET 32 0 0 32 66 1 (1.52%) 2 (3.03%) 0 65 (-1.52%) DEEPLISH ROAD 74 0 0 74 296 0 1 (0.34%) 0 295 (-0.34%) DEEPLISH STREET 10 0 0 10 18 0 0 0 18 GATE STREET 14 0 0 14 33 0 0 0 33 HASTINGS STREET 8 0 0 8 15 1 (6.67%) 2 (13.33%) 0 14 (-6.67%) LETCHWORTH AVENUE 20 0 0 20 43 0 0 0 43 LINCOLN LEACH COURT 9 0 0 9 27 0 0 0 27 LUCKNOW STREET 20 0 0 20 31 0 0 0 31 MARIGOLD STREET 54 0 0 54 122 0 3 (2.46%) 0 119 (-2.46%) Page 123 MIDHURST STREET 36 0 0 36 67 4 (5.97%) 1 (1.49%) 0 70 (4.48%) ASHFIELD HOUSE, MILKSTONE 25 0 0 25 18 0 1 (5.56%) 0 17 (-5.56%) ROAD LEIGHTON HOUSE, MILKSTONE 1 0 0 1 18 0 1 (5.56%) 0 17 (-5.56%) ROAD MEAVY VIEW, MILKSTONE ROAD 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 2 MILKSTONE ROAD 31 0 0 31 88 0 0 0 88 NICHOLSON STREET 12 0 0 12 25 2 (8.00%) 0 0 27 (8.00%) ORIEL STREET 3 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 3 OSBORNE STREET 27 0 0 27 48 1 (2.08%) 0 0 49 (2.08%) OTHER ELECTORS 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 OVERT STREET 13 0 0 13 36 1 (2.78%) 0 0 37 (2.78%) PENRITH STREET 18 0 0 18 26 0 1 (3.85%) 0 25 (-3.85%) PHILIP STREET 17 0 0 17 42 0 0 0 42 PIKE STREET 26 0 0 26 45 1 (2.22%) 0 0 46 (2.22%) POMONA STREET 33 0 0 33 65 1 (1.54%) 0 0 66 (1.54%) PULLMAN STREET 33 0 0 33 105 0 4 (3.81%) 0 101 (-3.81%) SALIK GARDENS 12 0 0 12 39 0 0 0 39 SALKELD STREET 9 0 0 9 22 0 0 0 22 ST LUKE STREET 10 0 0 10 18 0 0 0 18 STANHOPE STREET 6 0 0 6 7 0 0 0 7 VENTNOR STREET 30 0 0 30 78 2 (2.56%) 0 0 80 (2.56%) VINE PLACE 4 0 0 4 8 0 0 0 8

ELECSTAT - Elector Statistics by Area/PD/Street Page: 65 Elector Stttc  reStreet

including other electors Printed: 28 June 2011 o e Elector Street etl  !rt ##e# to elete#( rre't  !rt ##e# to elete# &&lc't ( rre't  l"e# $e%ter  l"e# $e%ter e'#'%

CC - WELBURN STREET 21 0 0 21 41 0 2 (4.88%) 0 39 (-4.88%) YARROW CLOSE 26 0 0 26 69 2 (2.90%) 2 (2.90%) 0 69 6otl 7or 8 (( 9 F2@ ) ) F2@ 0150) A) B0C0)DE A@ B0C35DE ) 015)@ B9)CA5DE

CD - ALBION ROAD 32 0 0 32 66 0 0 0 66 BRIAR STREET 26 0 0 26 47 2 (4.26%) 0 0 49 (4.26%) BRIDGEFIELD STREET 22 0 0 22 37 1 (2.70%) 1 (2.70%) 0 37 CASTLE AVENUE 8 0 0 8 19 0 0 0 19 CASTLE HILL CRESCENT 15 0 0 15 26 1 (3.85%) 0 0 27 (3.85%)

Page 124 CORPORATION ROAD 13 0 0 13 20 0 2 (10.00%) 0 18 (-10.00%) FENWICK STREET 2 0 0 2 3 0 0 0 3 FERN STREET 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 2 HEATH STREET 43 0 0 43 78 0 1 (1.28%) 0 77 (-1.28%) MANCHESTER ROAD 42 0 0 42 59 0 0 0 59 MAPLE STREET 28 0 0 28 59 2 (3.39%) 0 0 61 (3.39%) MELLOR STREET 17 0 0 17 47 0 0 0 47 NORMAN ROAD 8 0 0 8 17 0 0 0 17 OTHER ELECTORS 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 SPARTHBOTTOMS ROAD 28 0 0 28 36 1 (2.78%) 0 0 37 (2.78%) ST ALBANS COURT 18 0 0 18 28 0 2 (7.14%) 0 26 (-7.14%) ST ALBANS TERRACE 22 0 0 22 42 0 0 0 42 WEST HILL, CASTLE AVENUE 46 0 0 46 61 1 (1.64%) 2 (3.28%) 0 60 (-1.64%) 6otl 7or 8 ( 9 3FA ) ) 3FA 2HF 5 B0CAHDE 5 B0CAHDE ) 2HF B)C))DE

CE - ANN STREET 8 0 0 8 10 0 0 0 10 BOUNDARY STREET 28 0 0 28 84 0 0 0 84 BOUNDARY WALK 6 0 0 6 10 0 0 0 10 KHUBSURET HOUSE, CASTLEMERE 35 0 9(25.71%) 26 39 1 (2.56%) 1 (2.56%) 0 39 STREET CASTLEMERE STREET 38 0 0 38 93 1 (1.08%) 1 (1.08%) 0 93 DORSET STREET 3 0 0 3 10 0 0 0 10 DOWLING STREET 5 0 0 5 6 0 0 0 6 DRAKE STREET 68 0 0 68 114 1 (0.88%) 2 (1.75%) 0 113 (-0.88%) PARK COURT, DRAKE STREET 14 0 0 14 15 0 0 0 15

ELECSTAT - Elector Statistics by Area/PD/Street Page: 66 Elector Stttc  reStreet

including other electors Printed: 28 June 2011 o e Elector Street etl  !rt ##e# to elete#( rre't  !rt ##e# to elete# &&lc't ( rre't  l"e# $e%ter  l"e# $e%ter e'#'%

CE - EASTBOURNE STREET 11 0 0 11 23 0 0 0 23 ELLESMERE STREET 13 0 0 13 41 0 0 0 41 ESSEX STREET 17 0 0 17 27 1 (3.70%) 2 (7.41%) 0 26 (-3.70%) FENTON MEWS 5 0 0 5 10 0 0 0 10 FENTON MEWS NURSING HOME, 1 0 0 1 43 0 2 (4.65%) 0 41 (-4.65%) FENTON STREET FENTON STREET 40 0 0 40 111 1 (0.90%) 0 0 112 (0.90%) FIRE STATION YARD,MACLURE 9 0 0 9 28 0 0 0 28 ROAD ALLINGTON, FREEHOLD ESTATE 24 0 0 24 33 3 (9.09%) 0 0 36 (9.09%) BEVERSTON, FREEHOLD ESTATE 15 0 0 15 22 0 0 0 22 CONISBOROUGH, FREEHOLD 36 0 0 36 46 1 (2.17%) 1 (2.17%) 0 46

Page 125 ESTATE DONNINGTON, FREEHOLD ESTATE 20 0 0 20 14 0 0 0 14 EDLINGHAM, FREEHOLD ESTATE 20 0 0 20 26 0 0 0 26 FARINGDON, FREEHOLD ESTATE 11 0 0 11 12 0 0 0 12 GOODRICH, FREEHOLD ESTATE 20 0 0 20 23 0 0 0 23 HARTLEBURY, FREEHOLD ESTATE 20 0 0 20 26 0 0 0 26 ILMINSTER, FREEHOLD ESTATE 36 0 0 36 38 0 1 (2.63%) 0 37 (-2.63%) KENILWORTH, FREEHOLD ESTATE 24 0 1(4.17%) 23 27 0 1 (3.70%) 0 26 (-3.70%) LYDFORD, FREEHOLD ESTATE 24 0 0 24 25 0 2 (8.00%) 0 23 (-8.00%) MONTGOMERY, FREEHOLD ESTATE 18 0 0 18 23 0 2 (8.70%) 0 21 (-8.70%) OLNEY, FREEHOLD ESTATE 20 0 0 20 21 0 0 0 21 PENDENNIS, FREEHOLD ESTATE 16 0 0 16 19 0 0 0 19 RUTLAND, FREEHOLD ESTATE 16 0 0 16 17 0 0 0 17 SHIRBURN, FREEHOLD ESTATE 16 0 0 16 21 0 0 0 21 THORNBURY, FREEHOLD ESTATE 12 0 0 12 19 0 0 0 19 UPTON, FREEHOLD ESTATE 31 0 0 31 48 0 0 0 48 WOLVESEY, FREEHOLD ESTATE 28 0 1(3.57%) 27 40 0 5 (12.50%) 0 35 (-12.50%) FREEHOLD STREET 2 0 0 2 9 0 0 0 9 FREETRADE STREET 7 0 0 7 9 0 0 0 9 GROVE STREET 10 0 0 10 13 0 0 0 13 HAMPDEN STREET 2 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 1 HEALEY STREET 5 0 0 5 5 0 0 0 5 NO.3 COURT, HENRY STREET 4 0 0 4 5 0 0 0 5

ELECSTAT - Elector Statistics by Area/PD/Street Page: 67 Elector Stttc  reStreet

including other electors Printed: 28 June 2011 o e Elector Street etl  !rt ##e# to elete#( rre't  !rt ##e# to elete# &&lc't ( rre't  l"e# $e%ter  l"e# $e%ter e'#'%

CE - HENRY STREET 17 0 0 17 35 1 (2.86%) 0 0 36 (2.86%) HUTTON HOUSE 19 0 0 19 18 0 1 (5.56%) 0 17 (-5.56%) KENT STREET 20 0 0 20 46 0 0 0 46 KILNERDEYNE TERRACE 9 0 0 9 18 0 0 0 18 KING STREET EAST 41 0 0 41 136 1 (0.74%) 0 0 137 (0.74%) KING STREET SOUTH 42 0 0 42 145 0 0 0 145 LAKE STREET 2 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 2 CUTHBERT MAYNE COURT, LATIN 26 0 0 26 31 0 3 (9.68%) 0 28 (-9.68%) STREET LOWER TWEEDALE STREET 5 0 0 5 6 0 0 0 6

Page 126 MACLURE ROAD 6 0 0 6 13 0 0 0 13 STATHAM HOUSE, MACLURE ROAD 9 0 0 9 6 0 3 (50.00%) 0 3 (-50.00%) MERE LANE 16 0 18(112.50%) -2 51 0 2 (3.92%) 0 49 (-3.92%) MERE STREET 39 0 0 39 93 0 0 1 93 MILK STREET 8 0 0 8 9 0 0 0 9 MILKSTONE PLACE 10 0 0 10 20 0 0 0 20 MILKSTONE ROAD 17 0 0 17 24 5 (20.83%) 0 0 29 (20.83%) MONMOUTH STREET 11 0 0 11 20 0 0 0 20 OTHER ELECTORS 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 RICHARD STREET 16 0 0 16 49 0 0 0 49 RUSSELL STREET 4 0 0 4 7 0 0 0 7 ST ALBANS STREET 20 0 0 20 52 0 0 0 52 CARDINAL VAUGHAN COURT, 10 0 0 10 11 0 0 0 11 SUFFOLK STREET SUFFOLK STREET 7 0 1(14.29%) 6 17 0 0 0 17 SUSSEX STREET 34 0 0 34 107 1 (0.93%) 0 0 108 (0.93%) TALBOT STREET 29 0 0 29 56 0 0 0 56 TRAFFORD STREET 14 0 0 14 19 0 1 (5.26%) 0 18 (-5.26%) TWEEDALE STREET 64 0 0 64 168 0 3 (1.79%) 0 165 (-1.79%) WICKLIFFE PLACE 7 0 0 7 12 0 1 (8.33%) 0 11 (-8.33%) WILLIAM STREET 31 0 0 31 106 0 0 0 106 6otl 7or 8 (E 9 01AFA ) 3) BAC32DE 01AHA A1H53 0F B)C25DE 3H B0C3FDE 0 A1H22 B9)C25DE

CF - ANN STREET 1 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 3

ELECSTAT - Elector Statistics by Area/PD/Street Page: 68 Elector Stttc  reStreet

including other electors Printed: 28 June 2011 o e Elector Street etl  !rt ##e# to elete#( rre't  !rt ##e# to elete# &&lc't ( rre't  l"e# $e%ter  l"e# $e%ter e'#'%

CF - ST CLARES HOUSE, ANN STREET 15 0 0 15 10 0 0 0 10 BACK DRAKE STREET 3 0 0 3 4 0 0 0 4 BAILLIE STREET 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 2 BARLOW STREET 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 CHANCEL PLACE 12 0 0 12 13 1 (7.69%) 1 (7.69%) 0 13 CHEETHAM STREET 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 CHURCH STILE 18 0 0 18 26 0 0 0 26 DRAKE STREET 23 0 0 23 14 0 0 0 14 THE CRESCENT, DRAKE STREET 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 FLEECE STREET 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 2 GREAT GEORGE STREET 2 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 2 GREENWOOD STREET 3 0 0 3 4 0 0 0 4 Page 127 HOLROYD STREET 6 0 0 6 8 0 0 0 8 HOWARD PLACE 13 0 0 13 13 0 1 (7.69%) 0 12 (-7.69%) LIVSEY STREET 7 0 0 7 14 1 (7.14%) 0 0 15 (7.14%) MILNROW ROAD 24 0 0 24 12 0 0 0 12 MOLESWORTH STREET 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 MOORE STREET 10 0 0 10 11 0 1 (9.09%) 0 10 (-9.09%) OAK STREET 6 0 0 6 11 0 0 0 11 OLDHAM ROAD 21 0 0 21 14 0 0 0 14 OTHER ELECTORS 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 PACKER STREET 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 PICKUP STREET 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 2 REED HILL 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 RICHARD STREET 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 RIVER STREET 1 0 0 1 10 0 1 (10.00%) 0 9 (-10.00%) ROCH VALE CARAVAN PARK 27 0 0 27 38 0 0 0 38 SCHOOL LANE 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 2 SPARROW HILL 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 ST MARYS GATE 4 0 0 4 4 0 0 0 4 ST. CHADS CLOSE 25 0 0 25 31 0 1 (3.23%) 0 30 (-3.23%) THE BUTTS 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 TONGE STREET 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 UNION STREET 5 0 0 5 5 0 0 0 5

ELECSTAT - Elector Statistics by Area/PD/Street Page: 69 Elector Stttc  reStreet

including other electors Printed: 28 June 2011 o e Elector Street etl  !rt ##e# to elete#( rre't  !rt ##e# to elete# &&lc't ( rre't  l"e# $e%ter  l"e# $e%ter e'#'%

CF - WALKER HOUSE, WALKER STREET 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 WOOD STREET 2 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 2 YORKSHIRE STREET 5 0 0 5 4 0 0 0 4 6otl 7or 8 (! 9 A@) ) ) A@) A2@ A B)CF@DE @ B0C54DE ) A2A B90C03DE TSIRS6PQE Q EEISS 3143) ) 22B0C25DE 3152H F1F4@ F) B)C4)DE 00) B0CH0DE A F1F@@ B9)C@0DE Page 128

ELECSTAT - Elector Statistics by Area/PD/Street Page: 70 Elector Stttc  reStreet

including other electors Printed: 28 June 2011 o e Elector Street etl  !rt ##e# to elete#( rre't  !rt ##e# to elete# &&lc't ( rre't  l"e# $e%ter  l"e# $e%ter e'#'%

SA - ASHES LANE 13 0 0 13 22 0 0 0 22 BEALCROFT CLOSE 27 0 0 27 56 0 0 0 56 BEALCROFT WALK 2 0 0 2 9 0 0 0 9 BRIDGE STREET 3 0 0 3 6 0 0 0 6 COLLIER AVENUE 29 0 0 29 59 2 (3.39%) 2 (3.39%) 0 59 CROFT HEAD DRIVE 72 0 0 72 145 4 (2.76%) 3 (2.07%) 0 146 (0.69%) EAFIELD AVENUE 60 0 0 60 140 1 (0.71%) 0 0 141 (0.71%) EAFIELD CLOSE 11 0 0 11 21 0 0 0 21 KILN LANE 19 0 0 19 39 0 0 0 39 LANESIDE WALK 7 0 0 7 13 0 0 0 13 LILY STREET 4 0 0 4 4 0 0 0 4 LOWOOD CLOSE 4 0 0 4 9 0 0 0 9 Page 129 OTHER ELECTORS 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 2 PARSONAGE WALK 13 0 0 13 28 0 0 0 28 PARSONAGE TERRACE, 3 0 0 3 7 0 0 0 7 PARSONAGE WALK PEARSON CLOSE 12 0 0 12 29 0 0 0 29 THE GRANGE, PEARSON CLOSE 3 0 0 3 7 0 0 0 7 RIVER PLACE 3 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 3 ROADS FORD AVENUE 19 0 0 19 39 0 0 0 39 SANDSTONE ROAD 9 0 0 9 21 0 0 0 21 SHOREFIELD CLOSE 11 0 0 11 25 0 0 0 25 SILVER HILL 15 0 0 15 32 0 0 0 32 STOCK GROVE 18 0 0 18 46 0 0 0 46 TURNOUGH ROAD 13 0 0 13 23 0 0 0 23 WEIR ROAD 67 0 0 67 140 0 3 (2.14%) 0 137 (-2.14%) WILDHOUSE LANE 22 0 0 22 33 0 1 (3.03%) 0 32 (-3.03%) WILDHOUSE COURT, WILDHOUSE 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 2 LANE YEOMANS CLOSE 27 0 0 27 60 0 0 0 60 6otl 7or 8 S 9 H55 ) ) H55 01)A) F B)C24DE 4 B)C55DE ) 01)05 B9)CA)DE

SB - ASHFIELD LANE 37 0 0 37 79 0 0 0 79 BEECHFIELD ROAD 79 0 0 79 149 0 2 (1.34%) 0 147 (-1.34%)

ELECSTAT - Elector Statistics by Area/PD/Street Page: 71 Elector Stttc  reStreet

including other electors Printed: 28 June 2011 o e Elector Street etl  !rt ##e# to elete#( rre't  !rt ##e# to elete# &&lc't ( rre't  l"e# $e%ter  l"e# $e%ter e'#'%

SB - BOWLAND GROVE 16 0 0 16 28 0 1 (3.57%) 0 27 (-3.57%) BRAMHALL CLOSE 51 0 0 51 81 0 0 0 81 BUCKLEY CHASE 44 0 0 44 95 0 0 0 95 BUCKLEY HILL LANE 41 0 0 41 86 0 0 0 86 CARTMEL AVENUE 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 2 CHADWICK FOLD 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 CLAREMONT ROAD 30 0 0 30 49 0 0 0 49 CRICKET VIEW 11 0 0 11 24 0 0 0 24 EGREMONT ROAD 94 0 0 94 175 0 1 (0.57%) 0 174 (-0.57%) GRANGE AVENUE 8 0 0 8 14 0 1 (7.14%) 0 13 (-7.14%) Page 130 HARBOUR LANE 83 0 0 83 159 1 (0.63%) 4 (2.52%) 2 156 (-1.89%) REBECCA COURT, HARBOUR LANE 17 0 0 17 21 0 0 0 21 LADYHOUSE LANE 9 0 0 9 12 0 0 0 12 OTHER ELECTORS 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 SHEPHERDS WAY 17 0 0 17 42 0 0 0 42 STANNEY CLOSE 22 0 0 22 46 1 (2.17%) 0 0 47 (2.17%) STOTT STREET 7 0 0 7 10 0 0 0 10 WHITFIELD DRIVE 14 0 0 14 33 0 0 0 33 WOODLANDS ROAD 64 0 0 64 110 0 0 0 110 6otl 7or 8 SG 9 2HF ) ) 2HF 01A02 A B)C02DE 4 B)CFHDE A 01A)4 B9)C@5DE

SC - ALBERT STREET 35 0 0 35 46 0 1 (2.17%) 0 45 (-2.17%) ALPINE DRIVE 34 0 0 34 65 0 0 0 65 AVON CLOSE 7 0 0 7 15 0 0 0 15 BACK DALE STREET 3 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 3 BALMORAL CLOSE 21 0 0 21 45 0 1 (2.22%) 0 44 (-2.22%) BEAL TERRACE 2 0 0 2 3 0 0 0 3 BILSON SQUARE 4 0 0 4 6 0 0 0 6 BOTESWORTH GREEN 29 0 0 29 65 0 0 0 65 BUTTERWORTH CLOSE 13 0 0 13 25 0 0 0 25 BUTTERWORTH HALL 10 0 0 10 13 0 0 0 13 CAMBRIAN DRIVE 7 0 0 7 14 0 0 0 14 CARR GROVE 14 0 0 14 27 0 0 0 27 CHADWICK CLOSE 21 0 0 21 32 0 0 0 32

ELECSTAT - Elector Statistics by Area/PD/Street Page: 72 Elector Stttc  reStreet

including other electors Printed: 28 June 2011 o e Elector Street etl  !rt ##e# to elete#( rre't  !rt ##e# to elete# &&lc't ( rre't  l"e# $e%ter  l"e# $e%ter e'#'%

SC - CHAPEL GATE 5 0 0 5 10 0 0 0 10 CHARLES MEWS, CHARLES LANE 18 0 0 18 22 0 1 (4.55%) 0 21 (-4.55%) CHARLES LANE 21 0 0 21 32 0 0 0 32 CHEVIOT CLOSE 31 0 0 31 58 0 0 0 58 CHIPPING FOLD 12 0 0 12 32 0 0 0 32 CHURCH TERRACE 13 0 0 13 19 0 0 0 19 CLEGG STREET 6 0 0 6 8 0 0 0 8 CLEVELAND DRIVE 40 0 0 40 81 0 0 0 81 CLIFTON STREET 10 0 0 10 11 0 0 0 11 CORNFIELD STREET 45 0 0 45 70 0 0 0 70 COTSWOLD CRESCENT 22 0 0 22 45 0 0 0 45 CROSS GATES ROAD 38 0 0 38 79 0 1 (1.27%) 0 78 (-1.27%) Page 131 CROSSBROOK WAY 33 0 0 33 61 0 0 0 61 DALE STREET 55 0 18(32.73%) 37 81 0 2 (2.47%) 0 79 (-2.47%) DELPH STREET 13 0 0 13 30 0 0 0 30 DERWENT AVENUE 29 0 0 29 60 0 0 0 60 EDMUND STREET 2 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 1 EQUITABLE STREET 40 0 0 40 60 0 0 0 60 FAIRWAY 18 0 0 18 29 0 0 0 29 GOOD INTENT 2 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 2 GORSE ROAD 22 0 0 22 42 0 0 0 42 HARDMAN STREET 8 0 0 8 9 0 0 0 9 HEATON STREET 13 0 0 13 22 0 0 0 22 HEYS CLOSE 17 0 0 17 31 0 0 0 31 HIGHFIELD ROAD 18 0 0 18 33 0 0 0 33 HILLSIDE VIEW 10 0 0 10 19 0 0 0 19 HOLT STREET 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 HUMBER ROAD 13 0 0 13 24 0 0 0 24 HURSTED ROAD 62 0 0 62 114 2 (1.75%) 0 0 116 (1.75%) KENSINGTON CLOSE 16 0 0 16 29 0 0 0 29 KILN LANE 64 0 0 64 121 0 0 0 121 KILN MOUNT 2 0 0 2 3 0 0 0 3 LADYHOUSE CLOSE 44 0 0 44 70 0 1 (1.43%) 0 69 (-1.43%) LADYHOUSE LANE 18 0 0 18 26 1 (3.85%) 0 0 27 (3.85%)

ELECSTAT - Elector Statistics by Area/PD/Street Page: 73 Elector Stttc  reStreet

including other electors Printed: 28 June 2011 o e Elector Street etl  !rt ##e# to elete#( rre't  !rt ##e# to elete# &&lc't ( rre't  l"e# $e%ter  l"e# $e%ter e'#'%

SC - LAMBOURNE GROVE 27 0 0 27 56 1 (1.79%) 0 0 57 (1.79%) LEACH STREET 3 0 0 3 4 0 0 0 4 LOWER TUNSHILL 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 2 LOWHOUSE CLOSE 14 0 0 14 26 0 0 0 26 MAJOR STREET 27 0 0 27 42 0 0 0 42 MALVERN CLOSE 18 0 0 18 34 0 0 0 34 MAVIS GROVE 8 0 0 8 23 0 1 (4.35%) 0 22 (-4.35%) MENDIP DRIVE 18 0 0 18 35 0 0 0 35 MERLIN ROAD 18 0 0 18 33 0 1 (3.03%) 0 32 (-3.03%) MILNE GROVE 6 0 0 6 9 0 0 0 9 Page 132 MILNES YARD 2 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 2 MOORLAND AVENUE 38 0 0 38 80 0 2 (2.50%) 0 78 (-2.50%) MOY HILL 5 0 0 5 8 0 0 0 8 NEW STREET 13 0 0 13 20 0 0 0 20 NEWFIELD VIEW 35 0 0 35 75 0 4 (5.33%) 0 71 (-5.33%) NEWHEY ROAD 67 0 0 67 90 1 (1.11%) 2 (2.22%) 0 89 (-1.11%) ROSEMARY CARE HOME, NEWHEY 1 0 0 1 3 1 (33.33%) 0 0 4 (33.33%) ROAD OTHER ELECTORS 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 2 PENNINE DRIVE 62 0 0 62 124 2 (1.61%) 5 (4.03%) 0 121 (-2.42%) PLATT CLOSE 11 0 0 11 15 0 0 0 15 RAINES CREST 36 0 0 36 61 0 1 (1.64%) 0 60 (-1.64%) RONNIE TAYLOR CLOSE 62 0 0 62 0 0 0 0 0 CLOCK TOWER COURT, ROYDS 27 0 0 27 30 0 2 (6.67%) 0 28 (-6.67%) STREET ROYDS STREET 31 0 0 31 41 1 (2.44%) 1 (2.44%) 0 41 SANDRINGHAM DRIVE 4 0 0 4 9 0 0 0 9 SCHOFIELD CLOSE 16 0 0 16 17 0 1 (5.88%) 0 16 (-5.88%) SCHOFIELD STREET 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 SEVERN DRIVE 31 0 0 31 71 0 0 0 71 SHERIFF STREET 18 0 0 18 23 0 1 (4.35%) 0 22 (-4.35%) SIMEON STREET 32 0 0 32 57 2 (3.51%) 0 0 59 (3.51%) SLAIDBURN CLOSE 14 0 0 14 31 0 0 0 31 SMITH HILL 57 0 0 57 97 0 0 0 97 ST JAMES STREET 47 0 0 47 85 0 0 0 85

ELECSTAT - Elector Statistics by Area/PD/Street Page: 74 Elector Stttc  reStreet

including other electors Printed: 28 June 2011 o e Elector Street etl  !rt ##e# to elete#( rre't  !rt ##e# to elete# &&lc't ( rre't  l"e# $e%ter  l"e# $e%ter e'#'%

SC - PIONEER COURT, STATION ROAD 7 0 0 7 7 0 0 0 7 STONE STREET 9 0 0 9 18 0 0 0 18 STONEFIELD STREET 17 0 0 17 23 1 (4.35%) 1 (4.35%) 0 23 TAME BARN CLOSE 15 0 0 15 20 0 0 0 20 THAMES ROAD 41 0 0 41 75 0 1 (1.33%) 0 74 (-1.33%) TIMS TERRACE 3 0 0 3 5 0 0 0 5 TOWNLEY ROAD 44 0 0 44 94 0 1 (1.06%) 0 93 (-1.06%) TRENT AVENUE 19 0 0 19 36 1 (2.78%) 0 0 37 (2.78%) TUNSHILL GROVE 14 0 0 14 24 0 1 (4.17%) 0 23 (-4.17%) TUNSHILL LANE 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 2 TYDEMAN WALK 15 0 0 15 31 0 0 0 31 VICTORIA TERRACE 11 0 0 11 13 1 (7.69%) 0 0 14 (7.69%) Page 133 WATER LANE 6 0 0 6 12 0 0 0 12 WELLINGTON STREET 28 0 0 28 46 0 0 0 46 WESTWARD HO 18 0 0 18 35 0 1 (2.86%) 0 34 (-2.86%) 6otl 7or 8 S( 9 01420 ) 05 B)C4ADE 014H3 31334 0H B)CHADE 33 B)C44DE ) 313A) B9)C@FDE

SD - ASH GROVE 10 0 0 10 13 0 0 0 13 BACK BROOM STREET 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 2 BACK PINE STREET 2 0 0 2 4 0 0 0 4 BEAL BANK CLOSE 17 0 0 17 30 0 0 0 30 BEECH STREET 2 0 0 2 3 0 0 0 3 BENTFIELD CRESCENT 13 0 0 13 28 0 0 0 28 BENTGATE CLOSE 10 0 0 10 15 0 0 0 15 BENTGATE STREET 59 0 0 59 101 0 0 0 101 BETHANY LANE 16 0 0 16 34 0 2 (5.88%) 0 32 (-5.88%) BIRCH CRESCENT 74 0 0 74 126 1 (0.79%) 3 (2.38%) 0 124 (-1.59%) BONE HEYS FARM 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 2 BRADLEY LANE 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 2 BRADLEY FARM, BRADLEY LANE 2 0 0 2 7 0 0 0 7 BROOK TERRACE 9 0 0 9 13 0 0 0 13 BROOM STREET 9 0 0 9 16 0 2 (12.50%) 0 14 (-12.50%) BROOMFIELD TERRACE 8 0 0 8 14 0 0 0 14 CARR MEADOW 3 0 0 3 7 0 0 0 7

ELECSTAT - Elector Statistics by Area/PD/Street Page: 75 Elector Stttc  reStreet

including other electors Printed: 28 June 2011 o e Elector Street etl  !rt ##e# to elete#( rre't  !rt ##e# to elete# &&lc't ( rre't  l"e# $e%ter  l"e# $e%ter e'#'%

SD - CEDAR LANE 59 0 0 59 96 0 2 (2.08%) 0 94 (-2.08%) CHATWELL COURT 16 0 0 16 18 0 0 0 18 CHURCH STREET 9 0 0 9 13 0 0 0 13 COLD GREAVE CLOSE 25 0 0 25 51 0 0 0 51 DIGGATE LANE 3 0 0 3 6 0 0 0 6 ELLENROAD FARM 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 ELM GROVE 16 0 0 16 30 0 0 0 30 GARDEN STREET 3 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 3 GARSIDE FARM 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 2 GORDON STREET 27 0 0 27 42 0 1 (2.38%) 0 41 (-2.38%) Page 134 GRANVILLE COURT 26 0 0 26 33 0 3 (9.09%) 0 30 (-9.09%) HANGING LEES CLOSE 20 0 0 20 41 0 0 0 41 HAUGH FOLD 24 0 0 24 39 2 (5.13%) 0 0 41 (5.13%) HAUGH LANE 37 0 0 37 64 0 0 0 64 HAUGH SQUARE 2 0 0 2 4 0 0 0 4 HAUGH 2 0 0 2 3 0 0 0 3 HAWTHORN LANE 16 0 0 16 17 0 0 0 17 HAZEL AVENUE 3 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 3 HIGHBANK ROAD 19 0 0 19 32 0 0 0 32 HIGHER OGDEN 16 0 0 16 35 0 0 0 35 NEWHEY MANOR H F E, 1 0 0 1 13 0 0 0 13 HUDDERSFIELD ROAD HUDDERSFIELD ROAD 204 0 0 204 351 0 3 (0.85%) 0 348 (-0.85%) KILN GARDENS 2 0 0 2 4 0 0 0 4 KITCLIFFE FARM 1 0 0 1 4 0 0 0 4 LABURNUM LANE 49 0 0 49 88 1 (1.14%) 3 (3.41%) 0 86 (-2.27%) LANEBOTTOM 7 0 0 7 12 0 0 0 12 PIONEER'S VILLA, LANEBOTTOM 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 2 LILAC AVENUE 44 0 0 44 77 0 0 0 77 LOWER OGDEN 3 0 0 3 5 0 0 0 5 MEADOWSIDE 9 0 0 9 23 0 0 0 23 NEWFIELD HEAD LANE 2 0 0 2 4 0 0 0 4 NEWHEY ROAD 61 0 0 61 109 0 2 (1.83%) 0 107 (-1.83%) LARK HILL FARM, NEWHEY 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 NORTH PARADE 23 0 0 23 41 0 0 0 41

ELECSTAT - Elector Statistics by Area/PD/Street Page: 76 Elector Stttc  reStreet

including other electors Printed: 28 June 2011 o e Elector Street etl  !rt ##e# to elete#( rre't  !rt ##e# to elete# &&lc't ( rre't  l"e# $e%ter  l"e# $e%ter e'#'%

SD - OAK STREET 7 0 0 7 10 0 0 0 10 TAME BARN FARM, OFF 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 2 HUDDERSFIELD ROAD WHITFIELD BOTTOMS, OFF SHAW 4 0 0 4 9 0 0 0 9 ROAD OGDEN LANE 4 0 0 4 8 0 0 0 8 OGDEN ROAD 1 0 0 1 4 0 0 0 4 PIONEERS VILLA, OGDEN 1 0 0 1 2 0 1 (50.00%) 0 1 (-50.00%) SMITHY GREEN, OGDEN 6 0 0 6 15 0 0 0 15 OTHER ELECTORS 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 PEPPERMINT CLOSE 12 0 0 12 20 0 0 0 20 PIETHORNE CLOSE 36 0 0 36 58 0 0 0 58

Page 135 PINE STREET 7 0 0 7 11 0 0 0 11 RAILWAY STREET 36 0 0 36 56 0 0 0 56 RAKEWOOD ROAD 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 2 DENSHAW, RIPPONDEN ROAD 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 2 RIVER MEADE 9 0 0 9 15 0 0 0 15 ROUGH BANK 3 0 0 3 4 0 0 0 4 ROUGH COTTAGES 2 0 0 2 4 0 0 0 4 ROUGH FARM 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 2 SCHOOL MEWS 6 0 0 6 11 0 0 0 11 SHAW ROAD 70 0 0 70 103 0 0 0 103 SPRING MILL 10 0 0 10 19 0 0 0 19 SPRING TERRACE 7 0 1(14.29%) 6 12 0 2 (16.67%) 0 10 (-16.67%) STEWART STREET 10 0 0 10 15 0 0 0 15 SYCAMORE AVENUE 50 0 0 50 99 0 0 0 99 SYKES STREET 11 0 0 11 22 0 0 0 22 TRAVIS STREET 13 0 0 13 20 0 0 0 20 TUNSHILL LANE 5 0 0 5 12 0 0 0 12 TWO BRIDGES ROAD 29 0 0 29 51 0 1 (1.96%) 0 50 (-1.96%) WATERVIEW CLOSE 9 0 0 9 20 0 0 0 20 WHITE SLACK FARM 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 WHITEBEAM CLOSE 33 0 0 33 81 0 0 0 81 WHITFIELD BOTTOMS 7 0 0 7 11 0 0 0 11 WHITFIELD CRESCENT 14 0 0 14 25 0 0 0 25

ELECSTAT - Elector Statistics by Area/PD/Street Page: 77 Elector Stttc  reStreet

including other electors Printed: 28 June 2011 o e Elector Street etl  !rt ##e# to elete#( rre't  !rt ##e# to elete# &&lc't ( rre't  l"e# $e%ter  l"e# $e%ter e'#'%

SD - WOLSELEY STREET 5 0 0 5 8 0 0 0 8 WOODSIDE 7 0 0 7 13 0 0 0 13 6otl 7or 8 S 9 0134) ) 0 B)C)FDE 01354 A1H30 H B)C02DE A@ B0C)3DE ) A1H0) B9)C52DE TSIQ$PW Q QEWEV H1H52 ) 04B)CHADE H1H2F 51))2 AF B)C3HDE F2 B)C4@DE A F14@F B9)C20DE Page 136

ELECSTAT - Elector Statistics by Area/PD/Street Page: 78 Elector Stttc  reStreet

including other electors Printed: 28 June 2011 o e Elector Street etl  !rt ##e# to elete#( rre't  !rt ##e# to elete# &&lc't ( rre't  l"e# $e%ter  l"e# $e%ter e'#'%

JA - ALDERMAN FOLEY DRIVE 21 0 0 21 28 0 0 0 28 ALDERMEADOW CLOSE 14 0 0 14 30 0 0 0 30 ASPEN GARDENS 8 0 0 8 15 0 0 0 15 BAGSLATE MOOR ROAD 23 0 0 23 62 0 0 0 62 BRACKENLEA FOLD 20 0 0 20 35 0 0 0 35 BRIAR CLOSE 9 0 0 9 21 2 (9.52%) 0 0 23 (9.52%) BROADSTONE CLOSE 6 0 0 6 15 0 0 0 15 BRONTE CLOSE 17 0 0 17 37 0 0 0 37 BURDETT AVENUE 19 0 0 19 33 0 0 0 33 CALDERSHAW LANE 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 2 CALDERSHAW ROAD 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 CARFAX FOLD 8 0 0 8 11 0 0 0 11 Page 137 CHARLES WHITTAKER STREET 3 0 0 3 5 0 0 0 5 COPPINGFORD CLOSE 29 0 0 29 53 0 0 0 53 CROSSMEADOW CLOSE 3 0 0 3 7 0 0 0 7 CUT LANE 4 0 0 4 9 0 0 0 9 DOWNLEY CLOSE 19 0 0 19 31 0 0 0 31 EDENFIELD ROAD 62 0 0 62 114 0 0 0 114 ELLENROD DRIVE 6 0 0 6 10 0 0 0 10 ELLENSHAW CLOSE 21 0 0 21 51 0 0 0 51 FEARN DENE 18 0 0 18 31 0 1 (3.23%) 0 30 (-3.23%) FERNLEA CLOSE 5 0 0 5 13 0 0 0 13 FERNSIDE WAY 11 0 0 11 28 0 0 0 28 FISHERFIELD 66 0 0 66 138 0 0 0 138 GREENVIEW DRIVE 24 0 0 24 48 0 0 0 48 GRIMES STREET 20 0 0 20 41 0 2 (4.88%) 0 39 (-4.88%) HALCYON CLOSE 8 0 0 8 14 0 0 0 14 HARGATE AVENUE 27 0 0 27 50 0 0 0 50 HARLAND WAY 32 0 0 32 63 0 0 0 63 HARRISON CLOSE 16 0 0 16 29 0 0 0 29 HEAP FOLD 42 0 0 42 81 0 0 0 81 KEATS AVENUE 24 0 0 24 56 0 0 0 56 LAWRENCE CLOSE 7 0 0 7 15 0 3 (20.00%) 0 12 (-20.00%) LOWER STANDRINGS 5 0 0 5 11 0 0 0 11

ELECSTAT - Elector Statistics by Area/PD/Street Page: 79 Elector Stttc  reStreet

including other electors Printed: 28 June 2011 o e Elector Street etl  !rt ##e# to elete#( rre't  !rt ##e# to elete# &&lc't ( rre't  l"e# $e%ter  l"e# $e%ter e'#'%

JA - MARSETT CLOSE 6 0 0 6 9 0 0 0 9 OAKSHAW DRIVE 77 0 0 77 159 0 0 0 159 OTHER ELECTORS 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 2 PALATINE AVENUE 7 0 0 7 17 0 0 0 17 PARGATE CHASE 40 0 0 40 79 0 1 (1.27%) 0 78 (-1.27%) PINTAIL CLOSE 9 0 0 9 17 0 0 0 17 REDFEARN WOOD 49 0 0 49 99 0 2 (2.02%) 0 97 (-2.02%) REGENCY COURT 5 0 0 5 15 0 0 0 15 SAXWOOD CLOSE 13 0 0 13 26 0 0 0 26 SHADDOCK AVENUE 20 0 0 20 38 0 0 0 38 Page 138 SHEARING AVENUE 27 0 0 27 76 0 0 0 76 SOUTH TERRACE 2 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 1 ST GEORGES ROAD 9 0 0 9 17 0 0 0 17 STOCKSGATE 26 0 0 26 44 0 0 0 44 TAYLOR AVENUE 5 0 0 5 12 0 0 0 12 THORNLEA DRIVE 36 0 0 36 58 0 0 0 58 TRAYLEN WAY 7 0 0 7 30 0 0 0 30 VANDYKE STREET 6 0 0 6 10 0 0 0 10 WELLBANK VIEW 31 0 0 31 87 0 0 0 87 WHITEMOSS 25 0 0 25 43 1 (2.33%) 3 (6.98%) 0 41 (-4.65%) WHITESIDE FOLD 14 0 0 14 35 0 0 0 35 WICKENTREE HOLT 32 0 0 32 62 0 0 0 62 WILLOWMEAD WAY 30 0 0 30 64 0 0 0 64 6otl 7or 8 Y 9 01)F2 ) ) 01)F2 A1055 3 B)C0HDE 0A B)C@@DE ) A10F4 B9)CH0DE

JB - ACER CLOSE 9 0 0 9 17 0 0 0 17 BAGSLATE MOOR LANE 1 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 3 BAGSLATE MOOR ROAD 29 0 0 29 46 0 1 (2.17%) 0 45 (-2.17%) BANKFIELD LANE 45 0 0 45 93 0 2 (2.15%) 0 91 (-2.15%) BETULA MEWS 8 0 0 8 19 0 0 0 19 BOWKER CLOSE 8 0 0 8 12 0 0 0 12 BROOKS END 37 0 0 37 67 0 1 (1.49%) 0 66 (-1.49%) CHRISTOPHER ACRE 12 0 0 12 32 0 0 0 32 CLAY LANE 53 1(1.89%) 0 54 90 1 (1.11%) 1 (1.11%) 0 90

ELECSTAT - Elector Statistics by Area/PD/Street Page: 80 Elector Stttc  reStreet

including other electors Printed: 28 June 2011 o e Elector Street etl  !rt ##e# to elete#( rre't  !rt ##e# to elete# &&lc't ( rre't  l"e# $e%ter  l"e# $e%ter e'#'%

JB - CLAYFIELD DRIVE 25 0 0 25 57 0 0 0 57 CLAYMERE AVENUE 38 0 0 38 83 0 0 0 83 EDENFIELD ROAD 28 0 0 28 48 1 (2.08%) 2 (4.17%) 0 47 (-2.08%) ELMSFIELD AVENUE 128 0 0 128 252 0 2 (0.79%) 0 250 (-0.79%) ENFIELD CLOSE 13 0 0 13 28 0 0 0 28 FURTHER FIELD 35 0 0 35 93 0 0 0 93 GALBRAITH WAY 14 0 0 14 31 1 (3.23%) 2 (6.45%) 0 30 (-3.23%) GARFIELD CLOSE 12 0 0 12 26 0 0 0 26 HIGHFIELD ROAD 46 0 0 46 98 0 0 0 98 HIGHWOOD 38 0 0 38 70 0 1 (1.43%) 0 69 (-1.43%) HOLLOWFIELD 12 0 0 12 30 0 1 (3.33%) 0 29 (-3.33%) INCHFIELD CLOSE 14 0 0 14 26 0 0 0 26 Page 139 INGLEFIELD 36 0 0 36 71 0 0 0 71 MERCER LANE 24 0 0 24 55 0 0 0 55 MEREBANK CLOSE 8 0 0 8 20 0 0 0 20 MIDDLEFIELD 8 0 0 8 22 0 0 0 22 MILLBROOK BANK 5 0 0 5 13 0 0 0 13 MINORCA CLOSE 9 0 0 9 16 0 0 0 16 MOOR HILL 34 0 0 34 78 0 0 0 78 MOORLAND AVENUE 8 0 0 8 12 0 0 0 12 NETHERCROFT 5 0 0 5 16 0 0 0 16 NEWHOUSE CRESCENT 44 0 0 44 82 0 0 0 82 OLD DELPH ROAD 3 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 3 OTHER ELECTORS 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 PIPERS CLOSE 8 0 0 8 18 1 (5.56%) 0 0 19 (5.56%) POPPYFIELD VIEW 10 0 0 10 26 0 0 0 26 REDFERN WAY 14 0 0 14 27 0 0 0 27 RILLDENE WALK 11 0 0 11 22 0 0 0 22 ROSEWOOD 18 0 0 18 37 0 0 0 37 RUSHLAKE GARDENS 5 0 0 5 12 0 0 0 12 SCARFIELD DRIVE 27 0 0 27 53 2 (3.77%) 2 (3.77%) 0 53 SHELFIELD CLOSE 6 0 0 6 11 0 0 0 11 SHELFIELD LANE 107 0 0 107 211 0 0 0 211 SHELFIELD COTTAGES, SHELFIELD 6 0 0 6 9 0 0 0 9 LANE ELECSTAT - Elector Statistics by Area/PD/Street Page: 81 Elector Stttc  reStreet

including other electors Printed: 28 June 2011 o e Elector Street etl  !rt ##e# to elete#( rre't  !rt ##e# to elete# &&lc't ( rre't  l"e# $e%ter  l"e# $e%ter e'#'%

JB - STANSFIELD DRIVE 10 0 0 10 25 0 0 0 25 TOP O'TH' LANE 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 WALLWORK CLOSE 9 0 0 9 13 0 0 0 13 WATER CROFT 11 0 0 11 27 0 0 0 27 WESTFIELD CLOSE 22 0 0 22 45 0 2 (4.44%) 0 43 (-4.44%) WHITEFIELD AVENUE 36 0 0 36 83 0 0 0 83 WHITTAKER LANE 38 0 0 38 83 0 0 0 83 6otl 7or 8 YG 9 010A4 0B)C)4DE ) 0103) A130A 2 B)CA2DE 0F B)CFHDE ) A13)0 B9)CH5DE

JC -

Page 140 ALBURY DRIVE 29 0 0 29 76 0 0 0 76 ASHBOURNE NURSING HOME, 1 0 0 1 14 0 4 (28.57%) 0 10 (-28.57%) ASHBOURNE STREET ASHBOURNE STREET 15 0 0 15 21 0 0 0 21 BACK LANE 3 0 1(33.33%) 2 4 0 4 (100.00%) 0 0 (-100.00%) BAGNALL CLOSE 9 0 0 9 26 0 0 0 26 BAITINGS CLOSE 10 0 0 10 20 0 0 0 20 BAITINGS ROW 5 0 0 5 8 0 0 0 8 BANK HOUSE FARM, NORDEN 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 2 BANK HOUSE, NORDEN 1 0 0 1 4 0 0 0 4 BARLOW MOOR CLOSE 12 0 0 12 25 0 0 0 25 BLACKPITS ROAD 10 0 0 10 18 0 0 0 18 BRICKGROUND 8 0 0 8 14 0 0 0 14 BROAD ACRE 20 0 0 20 42 0 0 0 42 CHURCH VIEW 8 0 0 8 10 0 0 0 10 CLAPGATE ROAD 15 0 0 15 19 0 0 0 19 COAL BANK FOLD 14 0 0 14 28 0 0 0 28 DURNFORD CLOSE 21 0 0 21 48 0 0 0 48 EDENFIELD ROAD 191 0 0 191 291 0 3 (1.03%) 0 288 (-1.03%) PROSPECT TERRACE, EDENFIELD 2 0 0 2 6 0 0 0 6 ROAD SUNNYSIDE COTTAGES, EDENFIELD 5 0 0 5 9 0 0 0 9 ROAD ELLIS FOLD 38 0 1(2.63%) 37 74 0 3 (4.05%) 0 71 (-4.05%) FAIR VIEW CLOSE 8 0 0 8 16 0 0 0 16 FALCON CLOSE 20 0 0 20 38 0 0 0 38

ELECSTAT - Elector Statistics by Area/PD/Street Page: 82 Elector Stttc  reStreet

including other electors Printed: 28 June 2011 o e Elector Street etl  !rt ##e# to elete#( rre't  !rt ##e# to elete# &&lc't ( rre't  l"e# $e%ter  l"e# $e%ter e'#'%

JC - FARNLEY CLOSE 13 0 0 13 35 0 0 0 35 FORDOE LANE 2 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 2 FORSYTH STREET 18 0 0 18 28 0 0 0 28 FOUR LANES WAY 12 0 0 12 27 0 0 0 27 GREENBOOTH ROAD 7 0 0 7 8 0 0 0 8 HAREWOOD AVENUE 20 0 0 20 43 0 0 0 43 HAREWOOD CLOSE 11 0 0 11 26 0 0 0 26 HAREWOOD DRIVE 28 0 0 28 65 0 0 0 65 HAREWOOD ROAD 48 0 0 48 104 0 1 (0.96%) 0 103 (-0.96%) HAREWOOD WAY 17 0 0 17 40 0 0 0 40 HEAP ROAD 7 0 0 7 24 0 3 (12.50%) 0 21 (-12.50%) HIBSON AVENUE 37 0 0 37 84 3 (3.57%) 0 0 87 (3.57%) Page 141 HIGHER LODGE 6 0 0 6 13 0 0 0 13 HIGHER TENTERFIELD 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 2 HUTCHINSON ROAD 48 0 0 48 98 1 (1.02%) 1 (1.02%) 0 98 INDUSTRY STREET 19 0 0 19 23 0 0 0 23 KEEPERS COTTAGES 3 0 0 3 5 0 0 0 5 KEEPERS DRIVE 62 0 0 62 112 0 0 0 112 KENDAL AVENUE 16 0 0 16 33 0 1 (3.03%) 0 32 (-3.03%) KNOWL FARM, NORDEN 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 LANCASTER TERRACE 4 0 0 4 6 0 0 0 6 LOWER TENTERFIELD 6 0 0 6 13 0 0 0 13 MARCROFT GATE, NORDEN 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 2 MARTINS FIELD 24 0 0 24 42 0 0 0 42 MEADOW HEAD FARM 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 MEADOWHEAD LANE 8 0 0 8 15 0 0 0 15 MILL CROFT CLOSE 10 0 0 10 16 0 0 0 16 MOOR VIEW CLOSE 7 0 0 7 26 0 0 0 26 NADEN VIEW 13 0 0 13 23 0 0 0 23 NORDALE PARK 61 0 0 61 137 0 2 (1.46%) 0 135 (-1.46%) NORDEN CLOSE 20 0 0 20 45 0 0 0 45 NORDEN WAY 33 0 0 33 64 2 (3.13%) 0 0 66 (3.13%) OTHER ELECTORS 1 0 0 1 3 0 1 (33.33%) 0 2 (-33.33%) OVERTOWN LANE 6 0 0 6 17 0 0 0 17

ELECSTAT - Elector Statistics by Area/PD/Street Page: 83 Elector Stttc  reStreet

including other electors Printed: 28 June 2011 o e Elector Street etl  !rt ##e# to elete#( rre't  !rt ##e# to elete# &&lc't ( rre't  l"e# $e%ter  l"e# $e%ter e'#'%

JC - PAPERHOUSE CLOSE 36 0 0 36 44 0 0 0 44 PITSHOUSE LANE 8 0 0 8 11 0 0 0 11 MOSS ROW, RAVEN STREET 26 0 0 26 30 0 0 0 30 RAVEN STREET 6 0 0 6 8 0 0 0 8 RED LUMB 23 0 0 23 42 1 (2.38%) 0 0 43 (2.38%) THE MEADOWS, RED LUMB 30 0 0 30 27 1 (3.70%) 0 0 28 (3.70%) REDFERN COTTAGES 4 0 0 4 8 0 0 0 8 RIVIERA COURT 5 0 0 5 11 0 0 0 11 ROODS LANE 4 0 0 4 7 0 0 0 7 ROSE AVENUE 15 0 0 15 21 0 0 0 21 Page 142 SEVEN ACRES LANE 84 0 0 84 154 0 3 (1.95%) 0 151 (-1.95%) SHAWFIELD GROVE 9 0 0 9 18 0 0 0 18 SHAWFIELD LANE 52 1(1.92%) 0 53 97 2 (2.06%) 2 (2.06%) 0 97 SHEPHERD STREET 31 0 0 31 60 0 0 0 60 SLAUNT BANK 3 0 0 3 5 0 0 0 5 STORE STREET 16 0 0 16 20 0 0 0 20 TENTERHILL LANE 16 0 0 16 32 0 0 0 32 TOP O'TH'HILL FARM, NOR 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 2 TRINITY STREET 8 0 0 8 9 0 1 (11.11%) 0 8 (-11.11%) WHITTAKER STREET 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 WINGATE STREET 14 0 0 14 24 0 0 0 24 WOLSTENHOLME 3 0 0 3 7 0 0 0 7 WOLSTENHOLME FOLD 12 0 0 12 17 0 0 0 17 WOLSTENHOLME HALL FARM 2 0 0 2 5 0 0 0 5 WOLSTENHOLME LANE 16 0 0 16 37 0 0 0 37 WOODHOUSE LANE 64 0 0 64 116 0 0 0 116 RIGBY COURT, WOODHOUSE LANE 8 0 0 8 9 0 0 0 9 THE FARMHOUSE, ELLIS FOLD 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 FARM, WOODHOUSE LANE ZION TERRACE 3 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 3 6otl 7or 8 Y( 9 01@05 0B)C)FDE A B)C03DE 01@0F A15A0 0) B)C3@DE A4 B0C)3DE ) A15)A B9)C2FDE

JD - CHAPEL LANE, ASHWORTH ROAD 0 1 0 1 0 2 0 0 2 ASHWORTH ROAD 28 0 0 28 53 0 2 (3.77%) 0 51 (-3.77%)

ELECSTAT - Elector Statistics by Area/PD/Street Page: 84 Elector Stttc  reStreet

including other electors Printed: 28 June 2011 o e Elector Street etl  !rt ##e# to elete#( rre't  !rt ##e# to elete# &&lc't ( rre't  l"e# $e%ter  l"e# $e%ter e'#'%

JD - BIRTLE MOOR 8 0 0 8 17 0 2 (11.76%) 0 15 (-11.76%) BIRTLE GREEN FARM, BIRTLE ROAD 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 2 BIRTLE ROAD 21 0 0 21 36 0 0 0 36 THE RHYDDINGS, BIRTLE ROAD 18 0 0 18 24 0 0 0 24 BURY AND ROCHDALE OLD ROAD 62 0 0 62 98 0 0 0 98 CARR WOOD 3 0 0 3 5 0 0 0 5 CASTLE HILL 5 0 0 5 16 0 0 0 16 CHURCH LANE 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 2 CHURCH ROAD 5 0 0 5 6 0 0 0 6 EDENFIELD ROAD 8 0 1(12.50%) 7 13 0 1 (7.69%) 0 12 (-7.69%) ELBUT LANE 21 0 0 21 45 0 1 (2.22%) 0 44 (-2.22%) CARAVAN PARK, GELDER CLOUGH 24 0 0 24 25 0 0 0 25 Page 143 GELDER CLOUGH 2 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 1 GRISTLEHURST LANE 3 0 0 3 9 0 1 (11.11%) 0 8 (-11.11%) HARWOOD FIELDS, BIRTLE 4 0 0 4 11 0 0 0 11 HIGHER MOULDING 6 0 0 6 11 0 0 0 11 JOWKIN LANE 8 0 0 8 14 0 0 0 14 MILLETT TERRACE 5 0 0 5 12 0 0 0 12 MOULDING MOSS HOUSE, BIRTLE 2 0 0 2 4 0 0 0 4 NORDEN ROAD 6 0 0 6 12 0 0 0 12 OFF ASHWORTH ROAD 1 0 0 1 0 3 0 0 3 OTHER ELECTORS 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 RED BANK, BIRTLE 6 0 0 6 10 0 1 (10.00%) 0 9 (-10.00%) SCHOOL LANE 2 0 0 2 4 0 0 0 4 SPRING VIEW, BIRTLE 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 THE ORMRODS, BIRTLE 6 0 0 6 16 0 0 0 16 WEYTHORNE DRIVE 29 0 0 29 52 0 2 (3.85%) 0 50 (-3.85%) WHITE ASH TERRACE 3 0 0 3 6 0 0 0 6 WHITE ASH 3 0 0 3 6 0 0 0 6 WOODHOUSE LANE 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 2 6otl 7or 8 Y 9 A4H 0B)C3HDE 0 B)C3HDE A4H @03 @ B)C4FDE 0) B0C4@DE ) @)5 B9)C4FDE QP$EQ H1)0F 3B)C)FDE 3B)C)FDE H1)0F F153H AH B)C30DE 25 B)C5FDE ) F1F4) B9)C@2DE

ELECSTAT - Elector Statistics by Area/PD/Street Page: 85 Elector Stttc  reStreet

including other electors Printed: 28 June 2011 o e Elector Street etl  !rt ##e# to elete#( rre't  !rt ##e# to elete# &&lc't ( rre't  l"e# $e%ter  l"e# $e%ter e'#'%

LA - ADELAIDE STREET EAST 34 0 0 34 50 1 (2.00%) 1 (2.00%) 0 50 ASPINALL STREET 21 0 0 21 28 0 0 0 28 BARLEY HALL STREET 58 0 0 58 103 0 1 (0.97%) 0 102 (-0.97%) COACHMANS COURT, BARLEY HALL 8 0 0 8 10 0 0 0 10 STREET BARNFIELD STREET 8 0 0 8 13 0 0 0 13 BLENHEIM CLOSE 14 0 0 14 24 0 0 0 24 CARRUTHERS CLOSE 5 0 0 5 13 0 0 0 13 CHADWICK LANE 40 0 0 40 63 0 1 (1.59%) 0 62 (-1.59%) CONNELL WAY 7 0 0 7 17 0 0 0 17

Page 144 CORRY STREET 24 0 0 24 40 0 0 0 40 CRIMBLE LANE 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 2 DEWHIRST STREET 4 0 0 4 4 2 (50.00%) 0 0 6 (50.00%) DUMFRIES HOLLOW 4 0 0 4 9 0 0 0 9 FOLD STREET 14 0 0 14 22 0 0 0 22 GORTON STREET 36 0 0 36 53 0 0 0 53 HEYWOOD COURT CARE CENTRE, 1 0 0 1 30 0 6 (20.00%) 0 24 (-20.00%) GREEN LANE GREEN LANE 21 0 0 21 38 0 1 (2.63%) 0 37 (-2.63%) GROVE STREET 15 0 0 15 28 0 0 0 28 HAREFIELD DRIVE 16 0 0 16 34 0 0 0 34 HAROLD LEES ROAD 33 0 0 33 71 0 0 0 71 HEALEY AVENUE 14 0 0 14 34 0 0 0 34 INGOE CLOSE 5 0 0 5 13 0 0 0 13 LINDUM COURT, ASPINALL STREET 29 0 0 29 29 1 (3.45%) 1 (3.45%) 0 29 MATHEW MOSS LANE 2 0 0 2 4 0 0 0 4 MURIEL STREET 11 0 0 11 14 0 0 0 14 MUTUAL STREET 16 0 0 16 23 0 0 0 23 OLIVE STREET 24 0 0 24 36 0 0 0 36 CAPTAIN FOLD, ORCHARD STREET 21 0 0 21 34 2 (5.88%) 0 0 36 (5.88%) ORCHARD STREET 34 0 0 34 57 0 0 0 57 THE ORCHARDS, ORCHARD STREET 22 0 0 22 30 0 0 0 30 OTHER ELECTORS 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 PROMENADE STREET 58 0 0 58 106 0 4 (3.77%) 0 102 (-3.77%) RAILWAY STREET 36 0 0 36 75 0 0 0 75

ELECSTAT - Elector Statistics by Area/PD/Street Page: 86 Elector Stttc  reStreet

including other electors Printed: 28 June 2011 o e Elector Street etl  !rt ##e# to elete#( rre't  !rt ##e# to elete# &&lc't ( rre't  l"e# $e%ter  l"e# $e%ter e'#'%

LA - ROCHDALE ROAD EAST 127 0 0 127 229 0 2 (0.87%) 0 227 (-0.87%) SPRINGBANK HOME, ROCHDALE 1 0 0 1 16 0 3 (18.75%) 0 13 (-18.75%) ROAD EAST RYE STREET 14 0 0 14 24 0 0 0 24 RYECROFT AVENUE 24 0 0 24 50 0 0 0 50 ST ANNES MEWS, RYECROFT 3 0 0 3 8 0 0 0 8 AVENUE SANDIWAY 37 0 0 37 75 0 0 0 75 SIMPSON HILL CLOSE 12 0 0 12 26 0 0 0 26 SLAWSON WAY 4 0 0 4 11 0 0 0 11 SMITHIES STREET 8 0 0 8 12 0 0 0 12 ST ANNES GARDENS 11 0 0 11 23 0 0 0 23

Page 145 WILD STREET 23 1(4.35%) 0 24 36 2 (5.56%) 1 (2.78%) 0 37 (2.78%) WOODLAND ROAD 25 0 0 25 45 2 (4.44%) 0 0 47 (4.44%) WOODSTOCK CLOSE 16 0 0 16 33 0 1 (3.03%) 0 32 (-3.03%) YARWOOD CLOSE 12 0 0 12 24 0 0 0 24 YORK STREET 5 0 0 5 1 0 0 0 1 6otl 7or 8 I 9 4@4 0B)C0)DE ) 42) 01FA) 0) B)C@5DE AA B0CA5DE ) 01F)5 B9)CF)DE

LB - BEDFORD STREET 14 0 0 14 16 0 0 0 16 BENFIELD STREET 15 0 0 15 25 0 0 0 25 BIRCH STREET 15 0 0 15 17 0 0 0 17 BOWLING GREEN STREET 22 0 0 22 29 0 2 (6.90%) 0 27 (-6.90%) BRADSHAW STREET 3 0 0 3 4 0 0 0 4 BRIERLEY STREET 15 0 0 15 20 0 0 0 20 BURNS STREET 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 BURNSIDE CLOSE 18 0 0 18 35 0 0 0 35 BUXTON STREET 8 0 0 8 14 0 0 0 14 CAXTON STREET 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 2 CHURCH STREET 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 COBDEN STREET 33 0 0 33 59 0 2 (3.39%) 0 57 (-3.39%) CROMWELL STREET 28 0 0 28 40 0 0 0 40 EGERTON CLOSE 10 0 0 10 13 0 0 0 13 FIR STREET 2 0 0 2 3 0 0 0 3

ELECSTAT - Elector Statistics by Area/PD/Street Page: 87 Elector Stttc  reStreet

including other electors Printed: 28 June 2011 o e Elector Street etl  !rt ##e# to elete#( rre't  !rt ##e# to elete# &&lc't ( rre't  l"e# $e%ter  l"e# $e%ter e'#'%

LB - FLETCHER CLOSE 16 0 0 16 17 0 0 0 17 GAS STREET 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 GLENDALE CLOSE 4 0 0 4 9 0 0 0 9 GOLDBROOK CLOSE 29 0 0 29 43 0 2 (4.65%) 0 41 (-4.65%) GOLDCRAFT CLOSE 21 0 0 21 40 0 3 (7.50%) 0 37 (-7.50%) GORSEY HILL STREET 3 0 0 3 6 0 0 0 6 GREEN LANE 30 0 0 30 65 0 1 (1.54%) 0 64 (-1.54%) GREGGE STREET 4 0 0 4 5 1 (20.00%) 0 0 6 (20.00%) HALL STREET 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 HAMPDEN STREET 26 0 0 26 45 1 (2.22%) 3 (6.67%) 0 43 (-4.44%) Page 146 HARDFIELD STREET 5 0 0 5 6 0 0 0 6 HARWOOD GARDENS 24 0 0 24 34 0 0 0 34 HIND HILL STREET 36 0 0 36 70 0 0 0 70 HORNBY STREET 4 0 0 4 8 0 0 0 8 ISHERWOOD CLOSE 19 0 0 19 19 0 0 0 19 KING STREET 78 0 0 78 124 0 0 0 124 LLOYD STREET 14 0 0 14 29 0 0 0 29 MANCHESTER ROAD 44 0 0 44 66 0 2 (3.03%) 0 64 (-3.03%) MANCHESTER STREET 31 1(3.23%) 1(3.23%) 31 24 1 (4.17%) 1 (4.17%) 0 24 MILLFIELD, HORNBY STREET 14 0 0 14 18 0 1 (5.56%) 0 17 (-5.56%) MOUNT STREET 53 0 0 53 79 0 0 0 79 MUIRFIELD CLOSE 19 0 0 19 38 0 0 0 38 NELSON STREET 29 0 0 29 51 0 0 0 51 NEWHOUSE ROAD 21 0 0 21 48 0 0 0 48 ORMEROD STREET 10 0 0 10 9 0 0 0 9 OSBORNE STREET 26 0 0 26 41 0 0 0 41 OTHER ELECTORS 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 PENN STREET 13 0 0 13 14 0 2 (14.29%) 0 12 (-14.29%) PINE STREET 22 2(9.09%) 0 24 35 4 (11.43%) 2 (5.71%) 0 37 (5.71%) PRINCE STREET 11 0 0 11 15 0 0 0 15 PRINCESS CLOSE 7 0 0 7 15 1 (6.67%) 0 0 16 (6.67%) PYM STREET 31 0 0 31 42 0 0 0 42 RAILWAY STREET 38 0 0 38 66 0 1 (1.52%) 0 65 (-1.52%) RAILWAY TERRACE 9 0 0 9 16 0 0 0 16

ELECSTAT - Elector Statistics by Area/PD/Street Page: 88 Elector Stttc  reStreet

including other electors Printed: 28 June 2011 o e Elector Street etl  !rt ##e# to elete#( rre't  !rt ##e# to elete# &&lc't ( rre't  l"e# $e%ter  l"e# $e%ter e'#'%

LB - ROCHDALE LANE 13 1(7.69%) 0 14 24 2 (8.33%) 0 0 26 (8.33%) ROCHDALE ROAD EAST 4 0 0 4 7 0 0 0 7 ROCHDALE ROAD 6 0 0 6 9 0 1 (11.11%) 0 8 (-11.11%) PEACOCK TERRACE, ROCK STREET 6 0 0 6 6 0 0 0 6 ROEACRE COURT 31 0 0 31 35 0 0 0 35 ROYAL AVENUE 51 0 0 51 108 0 1 (0.93%) 0 107 (-0.93%) RUSSELL STREET 5 0 0 5 8 0 0 0 8 RYDER STREET 5 0 0 5 6 0 0 0 6 MAKIN COURT, SCHOFIELD STREET 42 0 0 42 45 0 0 0 45 SCHOFIELD STREET 29 0 0 29 34 0 0 0 34 SMITH STREET 6 0 0 6 9 0 0 0 9 ST ANDREWS DRIVE 18 0 0 18 40 0 0 0 40 Page 147 STAMFORD STREET 7 0 0 7 12 0 0 0 12 STANLEY STREET 36 0 0 36 68 0 0 0 68 SUMMERSGILL CLOSE 29 0 0 29 51 0 1 (1.96%) 0 50 (-1.96%) SUNDEW CLOSE 13 0 0 13 8 0 0 0 8 TEMPLE STREET 15 0 0 15 11 0 0 0 11 TWIN STREET 17 0 0 17 21 0 2 (9.52%) 0 19 (-9.52%) UNSWORTH COURT 36 0 0 36 40 1 (2.50%) 2 (5.00%) 0 39 (-2.50%) VALE STREET 4 0 0 4 6 0 0 0 6 VICTORIA STREET 4 0 0 4 4 0 0 0 4 VIGO STREET 7 0 0 7 7 0 0 0 7 WALTON STREET 59 0 0 59 102 0 0 0 102 WILTON GROVE 24 0 0 24 35 0 1 (2.86%) 0 34 (-2.86%) YORK STREET 7 0 0 7 2 1 (50.00%) 0 0 3 (50.00%) 6otl 7or 8 IG 9 013@@ HB)C3)DE 0 B)C)FDE 013@5 A1)FA 0A B)C@5DE 3) B0CH@DE ) A1)@H B9)C5FDE

LC - ADELAIDE STREET 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 2 ANN STREET 16 0 0 16 28 0 1 (3.57%) 0 27 (-3.57%) ASPINALL STREET 19 0 0 19 37 0 0 0 37 BUCKLEY STREET 14 0 0 14 24 0 0 0 24 CLARKE STREET 7 0 0 7 12 0 0 0 12 ELM STREET 3 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 3 HEYWOOD HALL ROAD 27 0 0 27 56 0 0 0 56

ELECSTAT - Elector Statistics by Area/PD/Street Page: 89 Elector Stttc  reStreet

including other electors Printed: 28 June 2011 o e Elector Street etl  !rt ##e# to elete#( rre't  !rt ##e# to elete# &&lc't ( rre't  l"e# $e%ter  l"e# $e%ter e'#'%

LC - JAMES STREET 9 0 0 9 17 0 0 0 17 JOHN STREET 30 0 0 30 41 0 0 0 41 MILLER STREET 60 0 0 60 87 0 0 0 87 MILLERS BROOK CLOSE 14 0 0 14 33 0 0 0 33 OTHER ELECTORS 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 PARK TERRACE 6 0 0 6 15 0 0 0 15 PROSPECT PLACE 9 0 0 9 16 0 0 0 16 QUEENS PARK ROAD 31 0 0 31 43 1 (2.33%) 1 (2.33%) 0 43 RUTLAND STREET 7 0 0 7 16 0 0 0 16 SHADWELL STREET EAST 11 0 0 11 15 0 0 0 15 Page 148 STARKEY STREET 53 0 0 53 83 2 (2.41%) 1 (1.20%) 0 84 (1.20%) TONGE STREET 35 0 0 35 65 0 0 0 65 WILLOW STREET 5 0 0 5 10 0 0 0 10 WOODFIELD TERRACE 10 0 0 10 19 0 0 0 19 YORK STREET 9 0 0 9 8 0 2 (25.00%) 0 6 (-25.00%) 6otl 7or 8 I( 9 3FF ) ) 3FF 23) 3 B)CH5DE @ B)CF4DE ) 2A5 B9)C3ADE

LD - ADELAIDE STREET 1 0 0 1 4 0 0 0 4 ADELAIDE HOUSE, ADELAIDE 4 0 0 4 3 0 0 0 3 STREET ARLEN WAY 7 0 0 7 10 0 0 0 10 ARTHUR STREET 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 BAMFORD ROAD 106 0 0 106 182 3 (1.65%) 3 (1.65%) 0 182 BANK TOP STREET 5 0 0 5 9 0 0 0 9 BRIDGE STREET 16 0 0 16 10 0 0 0 10 HAZLEHURST DRIVE, BURY AND 2 0 0 2 3 0 1 (33.33%) 0 2 (-33.33%) ROCHDALE OLD ROAD BURY AND ROCHDALE OLD ROAD 15 0 0 15 31 2 (6.45%) 0 0 33 (6.45%) CHERWELL COURT 34 0 0 34 36 0 2 (5.56%) 0 34 (-5.56%) CIVIC WALK 6 0 0 6 7 0 0 0 7 CLITHEROE CLOSE 35 0 0 35 63 0 1 (1.59%) 0 62 (-1.59%) CLOUGH LANE 2 0 0 2 8 0 0 0 8 COLLINGE STREET 3 0 0 3 5 0 0 0 5 CORCORAN CLOSE 57 0 0 57 59 1 (1.69%) 2 (3.39%) 0 58 (-1.69%)

ELECSTAT - Elector Statistics by Area/PD/Street Page: 90 Elector Stttc  reStreet

including other electors Printed: 28 June 2011 o e Elector Street etl  !rt ##e# to elete#( rre't  !rt ##e# to elete# &&lc't ( rre't  l"e# $e%ter  l"e# $e%ter e'#'%

LD - COURTHOUSE WAY 9 0 0 9 11 0 0 0 11 CRIMBLE LANE 3 0 0 3 7 0 1 (14.29%) 0 6 (-14.29%) DANIEL STREET 10 0 0 10 22 1 (4.55%) 0 0 23 (4.55%) DAWSON STREET 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 DERBY STREET 15 0 0 15 28 0 0 0 28 ELIZABETH STREET 8 0 0 8 9 0 0 0 9 GARDEN STREET 6 0 0 6 8 0 0 0 8 GEORGE STREET 12 0 0 12 21 0 0 0 21 HARTLAND STREET 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 2 HEYWOOD HALL ROAD 31 0 0 31 60 0 0 0 60 WHITE GATE MANOR, HEYWOOD 13 0 0 13 17 0 0 0 17 HALL ROAD Page 149 HILDA STREET 22 0 0 22 38 0 0 0 38 HOLLAND STREET 9 0 0 9 18 0 0 0 18 HOOLEY CLOUGH 2 0 0 2 5 0 0 0 5 LANGTON FOLD 4 0 0 4 6 0 0 0 6 LANGTON STREET 24 0 0 24 38 0 0 0 38 LEVER STREET 41 0 0 41 79 0 0 0 79 LONGFORD STREET 16 0 0 16 21 0 0 0 21 LOWER CRIMBLE COTTAGES 5 0 0 5 6 0 0 0 6 MARKET PLACE 4 0 0 4 1 0 0 0 1 MILLBANK COURT 14 0 0 14 16 0 2 (12.50%) 0 14 (-12.50%) MILLBANK STREET 28 0 0 28 46 0 1 (2.17%) 0 45 (-2.17%) MINE STREET 6 0 0 6 11 0 0 0 11 MUNICIPAL CLOSE 8 0 0 8 12 0 0 0 12 NELLIE STREET 14 0 0 14 27 0 0 0 27 OTHER ELECTORS 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 PEEL STREET 9 0 0 9 17 0 0 0 17 PLEASANT STREET 37 0 0 37 65 0 0 0 65 QUEEN STREET 24 0 0 24 31 0 0 0 31 QUEENS PARK ROAD 62 0 18(29.03%) 44 122 0 3 (2.46%) 0 119 (-2.46%) QURESHI HOUSE, QUEENS PARK 1 0 0 1 4 0 0 0 4 ROAD SMETHURST STREET 5 0 0 5 8 0 0 0 8 STARKEY STREET 57 0 0 57 91 2 (2.20%) 0 0 93 (2.20%)

ELECSTAT - Elector Statistics by Area/PD/Street Page: 91 Elector Stttc  reStreet

including other electors Printed: 28 June 2011 o e Elector Street etl  !rt ##e# to elete#( rre't  !rt ##e# to elete# &&lc't ( rre't  l"e# $e%ter  l"e# $e%ter e'#'%

LD - VICTORIA TERRACE 17 0 0 17 23 0 0 0 23 WEST STARKEY STREET 3 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 3 LYNDENE COURT, WEST STARKEY 22 0 0 22 27 0 0 0 27 STREET WEST STREET 2 0 0 2 3 0 0 0 3 WILLIAM GREENWOOD CLOSE 8 0 0 8 8 0 0 0 8 WOOD VIEW 6 0 0 6 9 0 0 0 9 WOODLAND STREET 16 0 0 16 26 2 (7.69%) 0 0 28 (7.69%) YORK STREET 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 2 6otl 7or 8 I 9 5F0 ) 05 BAC)FDE 5@3 013F4 00 B)C5)DE 02 B0C02DE ) 013FH B9)C32DE Page 150 LE - ABBEY CRESCENT 89 0 0 89 151 2 (1.32%) 1 (0.66%) 0 152 (0.66%) APPLETON COURT 8 0 0 8 6 1 (16.67%) 0 0 7 (16.67%) ASH STREET 10 0 0 10 12 0 0 0 12 BAY STREET 10 0 0 10 12 0 0 0 12 BURY AND ROCHDALE OLD ROAD 14 0 0 14 30 0 1 (3.33%) 0 29 (-3.33%) CEDAR AVENUE 107 0 0 107 149 0 2 (1.34%) 0 147 (-1.34%) CLAYBANK STREET 93 0 0 93 134 2 (1.49%) 4 (2.99%) 0 132 (-1.49%) FURNESS AVENUE 25 0 0 25 37 0 1 (2.70%) 0 36 (-2.70%) GEORGE STREET 18 0 0 18 34 0 0 0 34 GORSES 4 0 0 4 7 0 0 0 7 KIRKSTALL AVENUE 61 0 0 61 107 0 3 (2.80%) 0 104 (-2.80%) LIME GROVE 8 0 0 8 17 0 0 0 17 MELROSE AVENUE 26 0 0 26 55 0 0 0 55 MOSS BANK GROVE 10 0 0 10 19 0 0 0 19 OAK STREET 10 0 0 10 13 0 4 (30.77%) 0 9 (-30.77%) OTHER ELECTORS 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 PEEL LANE 85 0 0 85 117 1 (0.85%) 2 (1.71%) 0 116 (-0.85%) THORN CLOSE 24 0 0 24 42 0 0 0 42 TINTERN AVENUE 30 0 0 30 33 1 (3.03%) 1 (3.03%) 0 33 TINTERN PLACE 4 0 0 4 5 0 0 0 5 WEST STARKEY STREET 8 0 0 8 10 1 (10.00%) 1 (10.00%) 0 10 WHITBY AVENUE 16 0 0 16 18 0 0 0 18 6otl 7or 8 IE 9 220 ) ) 220 01))5 5 B)CF4DE A) B0C45DE ) 442 B90C04DE

ELECSTAT - Elector Statistics by Area/PD/Street Page: 92 Elector Stttc  reStreet

including other electors Printed: 28 June 2011 o e Elector Street etl  !rt ##e# to elete#( rre't  !rt ##e# to elete# &&lc't ( rre't  l"e# $e%ter  l"e# $e%ter e'#'%

LF - BEECHES 3 0 0 3 8 0 0 0 8 BRIDGE STREET 6 0 0 6 5 0 0 0 5 BROOK GARDENS 11 0 0 11 22 0 0 0 22 BRUNSWICK STREET 5 0 0 5 8 0 0 0 8 WALDEN, BRUNSWICK STREET 14 0 0 14 13 0 1 (7.69%) 0 12 (-7.69%) CALLAGHAN WALK 6 0 0 6 9 0 0 0 9 CARTRIDGE STREET 27 0 0 27 40 0 0 0 40 COOMASSIE STREET 36 0 0 36 62 0 0 0 62 EMMOTT CLOSE 8 0 0 8 15 0 0 0 15 ERMINGTON COURT 22 0 0 22 26 0 0 0 26 FOX STREET 3 0 0 3 2 0 0 0 2 WAVENEY, FOX STREET 14 0 0 14 17 0 1 (5.88%) 0 16 (-5.88%) Page 151 WITHERN, FOX STREET 14 0 0 14 21 1 (4.76%) 3 (14.29%) 0 19 (-9.52%) GREENFIELD COURT 6 0 0 6 11 0 0 0 11 HILL STREET 15 0 0 15 22 0 0 0 22 HIND HILL STREET 8 0 0 8 18 0 0 0 18 HOLLY OAK GARDENS 26 0 0 26 46 0 0 0 46 KAY BROW 16 0 0 16 32 0 0 0 32 AVON, KAY STREET 14 0 0 14 15 0 0 0 15 MARKET PLACE 3 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 3 MARKET STREET 2 1(50.00%) 0 3 1 0 0 0 1 MARY STREET 11 0 0 11 17 0 0 0 17 HALTON, MEADOW CLOSE 14 0 0 14 20 0 0 0 20 HAMMOND, MEADOW CLOSE 13 0 0 13 19 0 0 0 19 KELSEY, MEADOW CLOSE 14 0 0 14 15 0 1 (6.67%) 0 14 (-6.67%) KENNET, MEADOW CLOSE 14 0 0 14 18 0 0 0 18 RAINSDALE, MEADOW CLOSE 10 0 0 10 14 0 0 0 14 RYBURN, MEADOW CLOSE 10 0 0 10 11 0 0 0 11 SUTHERLAND, MEADOW CLOSE 10 0 0 10 10 0 0 0 10 MELLOR BROW 5 0 0 5 11 0 0 0 11 OTHER ELECTORS 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 PENDLETON CROFT 24 0 0 24 22 0 3 (13.64%) 0 19 (-13.64%) ASHBURN, SCHOOL STREET 13 0 0 13 13 1 (7.69%) 1 (7.69%) 0 13 SEXTON STREET 6 0 0 6 7 0 0 0 7

ELECSTAT - Elector Statistics by Area/PD/Street Page: 93 Elector Stttc  reStreet

including other electors Printed: 28 June 2011 o e Elector Street etl  !rt ##e# to elete#( rre't  !rt ##e# to elete# &&lc't ( rre't  l"e# $e%ter  l"e# $e%ter e'#'%

LF - SEYMOUR STREET 3 0 0 3 7 0 0 0 7 SMYRNA STREET 3 0 0 3 9 0 0 0 9 ST JAMES GROVE 3 0 0 3 5 0 0 0 5 CARLTON, ST JAMES STREET 10 0 0 10 11 0 0 0 11 CLOUGH, ST JAMES STREET 10 0 0 10 9 0 0 0 9 DAWLEY, ST JAMES STREET 10 0 0 10 8 0 0 0 8 ST JAMES TERRACE 12 0 0 12 24 1 (4.17%) 0 0 25 (4.17%) TAYLOR STREET 4 0 0 4 4 0 0 0 4 THE BROOKLANDS 3 0 0 3 4 0 0 0 4 TOWER STREET 8 0 0 8 17 0 0 0 17 Page 152 WALKER STREET 18 0 0 18 34 0 0 0 34 WILTON GROVE 11 0 0 11 18 0 0 0 18 BEVERLEY, WILTON STREET 10 0 0 10 12 0 0 0 12 CALDER, WILTON STREET 10 0 0 10 11 0 0 0 11 WILTON STREET 11 0 0 11 19 0 0 0 19 6otl 7or 8 I! 9 @3) 0B)C04DE ) @30 F22 3 B)C34DE 0) B0C30DE ) F@4 B9)C40DE QP$6 EVWPP H1F@3 2B)C03DE 04B)CH)DE H1FH) F1@F@ HF B)C2ADE 0)3 B0C32DE ) F1@04 B9)CFHDE

ELECSTAT - Elector Statistics by Area/PD/Street Page: 94 Elector Stttc  reStreet

including other electors Printed: 28 June 2011 o e Elector Street etl  !rt ##e# to elete#( rre't  !rt ##e# to elete# &&lc't ( rre't  l"e# $e%ter  l"e# $e%ter e'#'%

QA - CLEWORTH ROAD 33 0 0 33 62 2 (3.23%) 0 0 64 (3.23%) HOLLIN LANE 13 0 0 13 21 0 0 0 21 KINDER WAY 32 0 0 32 67 0 0 0 67 OTHER ELECTORS 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 PARSONS DRIVE 50 0 0 50 100 0 1 (1.00%) 0 99 (-1.00%) ROCHDALE ROAD 40 0 0 40 79 0 2 (2.53%) 0 77 (-2.53%) SPRINGFIELD ROAD 74 0 0 74 141 0 0 0 141 TOWNCROFT AVENUE 49 0 0 49 93 3 (3.23%) 0 0 96 (3.23%) 6otl 7or 8 ` 9 A4A ) ) A4A @23 @ B)C54DE 3 B)C@3DE ) @2@ B)C32DE

QB - ASSHETON STREET 5 0 0 5 9 0 0 0 9

Page 153 BAMFORD AVENUE 21 0 0 21 41 0 3 (7.32%) 0 38 (-7.32%) BARROWFIELDS 8 0 0 8 16 0 0 0 16 BREWSTER STREET 12 0 0 12 19 0 0 0 19 BROWN STREET 13 0 0 13 18 0 0 0 18 CHEAPSIDE 18 0 0 18 29 0 0 0 29 CHURCH STREET 22 0 0 22 31 0 0 0 31 HULTON CARE NURSING HOME, 1 0 0 1 20 0 1 (5.00%) 0 19 (-5.00%) CLARKE BROW CLARKE BROW 6 0 0 6 7 0 0 0 7 CLOUGH ROAD 25 0 0 25 42 0 1 (2.38%) 0 41 (-2.38%) DIXON STREET 8 0 0 8 11 0 1 (9.09%) 0 10 (-9.09%) EDWARD STREET 17 0 0 17 22 0 0 0 22 FIELDING STREET 25 0 0 25 34 0 0 0 34 NORMAN WEALL COURT, FIELDING 33 0 0 33 29 0 0 0 29 STREET HIGH STREET 14 0 0 14 18 0 0 0 18 HILL STREET 4 0 0 4 8 0 0 0 8 KING STREET 35 0 0 35 41 1 (2.44%) 1 (2.44%) 0 41 LEVER STREET 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 2 LONG STREET 46 0 0 46 35 0 3 (8.57%) 0 32 (-8.57%) LORD STREET 10 0 0 10 17 0 0 0 17 LOWER BAMFORD CLOSE 10 0 0 10 13 0 0 0 13 LULWORTH ROAD 55 0 0 55 118 0 0 0 118

ELECSTAT - Elector Statistics by Area/PD/Street Page: 95 Elector Stttc  reStreet

including other electors Printed: 28 June 2011 o e Elector Street etl  !rt ##e# to elete#( rre't  !rt ##e# to elete# &&lc't ( rre't  l"e# $e%ter  l"e# $e%ter e'#'%

QB - MORTON STREET 62 0 0 62 109 0 0 0 109 NEW LANE 10 0 0 10 9 0 2 (22.22%) 0 7 (-22.22%) NORTH STREET 48 0 0 48 77 0 0 0 77 OTHER ELECTORS 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 PETERLOO TERRACE 10 0 0 10 11 0 0 0 11 RADCLYFFE STREET 18 0 0 18 32 0 0 0 32 RECTORY STREET 16 0 0 16 25 0 0 0 25 ROCHDALE ROAD 67 1(1.49%) 0 68 96 1 (1.04%) 0 0 97 (1.04%) SAMUEL STREET 13 0 0 13 20 0 0 0 20 SMITHIES AVENUE 11 0 0 11 19 0 1 (5.26%) 0 18 (-5.26%) Page 154 SPRING GARDENS 2 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 2 ST LEONARDS SQUARE 8 0 0 8 12 0 0 0 12 ST STEPHENS GARDENS 34 0 0 34 46 0 0 0 46 WALTON STREET 2 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 2 WEST STREET 36 0 0 36 61 0 2 (3.28%) 0 59 (-3.28%) WHITE HART MEADOWS 1 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 3 WICKHAM TERRACE 8 0 0 8 12 0 1 (8.33%) 0 11 (-8.33%) 6otl 7or 8 `G 9 F32 0B)C0HDE ) F3F 0100F A B)C05DE 02 B0CH3DE ) 010)3 B90CA@DE

QC - BARROWFIELDS WALK 9 0 0 9 14 0 0 0 14 BARROWFIELDS 8 0 0 8 17 0 0 0 17 BOARSHAW CLOUGH WAY 62 0 0 62 81 0 2 (2.47%) 0 79 (-2.47%) BOARSHAW ROAD 79 0 0 79 113 0 2 (1.77%) 0 111 (-1.77%) BRASSEY STREET 27 0 0 27 58 1 (1.72%) 1 (1.72%) 0 58 BROOKLAND STREET 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 2 CHEETHAM AVENUE 3 0 0 3 4 0 0 0 4 CLOUGH COURT-BOARSHAW ROAD 29 0 0 29 35 0 0 0 35 HEMBURY CLOSE 20 0 0 20 29 0 0 0 29 HILLSIDE DRIVE 35 0 0 35 73 0 0 0 73 JOHN LEE FOLD 7 0 0 7 13 0 0 0 13 JUBILEE ROAD 109 0 18(16.51%) 91 204 0 5 (2.45%) 0 199 (-2.45%) JUBILEE TERRACE 22 0 0 22 43 0 0 0 43 LONGMEAD WAY 30 0 0 30 47 0 0 0 47 LYNWAY GROVE 11 0 0 11 22 0 0 0 22

ELECSTAT - Elector Statistics by Area/PD/Street Page: 96 Elector Stttc  reStreet

including other electors Printed: 28 June 2011 o e Elector Street etl  !rt ##e# to elete#( rre't  !rt ##e# to elete# &&lc't ( rre't  l"e# $e%ter  l"e# $e%ter e'#'%

QC - MORTON STREET 9 0 0 9 18 0 0 0 18 OTHER ELECTORS 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 PENROSE GARDENS 25 0 0 25 48 0 0 0 48 WAGSTAFFE STREET 38 0 0 38 67 0 0 0 67 WINWOOD DRIVE 3 0 0 3 10 0 0 0 10 6otl 7or 8 `( 9 @A5 ) 05 B3CH0DE @0) 545 0 B)C00DE 0) B0C00DE ) 554 B90C))DE

QD - ACRESFIELD ROAD 78 0 18(23.08%) 60 136 0 2 (1.47%) 0 134 (-1.47%) ADDISON DRIVE 48 0 0 48 102 3 (2.94%) 0 0 105 (2.94%) ARNOLD DRIVE 22 0 0 22 46 0 0 0 46 ASHBOURNE AVENUE 32 0 0 32 60 0 3 (5.00%) 0 57 (-5.00%)

Page 155 AYLESBURY GROVE 36 0 0 36 79 0 0 0 79 BOARSHAW CLOUGH 74 0 0 74 13 0 0 0 13 BOARSHAW CRESCENT 51 0 0 51 102 2 (1.96%) 0 0 104 (1.96%) CROSS AND PASSION CONVENT, 1 0 0 1 4 0 0 0 4 BOARSHAW ROAD BOARSHAW ROAD 123 0 0 123 248 0 0 0 248 BROWNING ROAD 16 0 0 16 27 0 0 0 27 BYRON ROAD 16 0 0 16 23 0 0 0 23 CANTERBURY CRESCENT 44 0 0 44 79 0 2 (2.53%) 0 77 (-2.53%) CHAUCER ROAD 12 0 0 12 27 0 0 0 27 CHELFORD CLOSE 64 0 0 64 142 0 0 0 142 COLERIDGE AVENUE 15 0 0 15 33 0 0 0 33 DALE ROAD 53 0 0 53 96 0 1 (1.04%) 0 95 (-1.04%) ELIOT WALK 17 0 0 17 45 0 1 (2.22%) 0 44 (-2.22%) GLENWOOD DRIVE 156 0 0 156 287 1 (0.35%) 2 (0.70%) 1 286 (-0.35%) GREEN LANE 109 0 0 109 183 0 2 (1.09%) 0 181 (-1.09%) GROVE ROAD 29 0 0 29 58 1 (1.72%) 2 (3.45%) 0 57 (-1.72%) GUILDFORD GROVE 106 0 0 106 189 2 (1.06%) 0 0 191 (1.06%) HAYFIELD CLOSE 23 0 0 23 29 0 1 (3.45%) 0 28 (-3.45%) HAZEL ROAD 4 0 0 4 7 0 0 0 7 HEREFORD WAY 201 0 0 201 420 0 3 (0.71%) 0 417 (-0.71%) KINGSLEY ROAD 32 0 0 32 71 0 0 0 71 MYRTLE ROAD 44 0 0 44 72 0 0 0 72

ELECSTAT - Elector Statistics by Area/PD/Street Page: 97 Elector Stttc  reStreet

including other electors Printed: 28 June 2011 o e Elector Street etl  !rt ##e# to elete#( rre't  !rt ##e# to elete# &&lc't ( rre't  l"e# $e%ter  l"e# $e%ter e'#'%

QD - OTHER ELECTORS 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 OXFORD DRIVE 42 0 0 42 58 1 (1.72%) 0 0 59 (1.72%) ASHBOURNE HOUSE, ROCHDALE 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 ROAD BRIARMEDE, ROCHDALE ROAD 1 0 0 1 30 0 1 (3.33%) 0 29 (-3.33%) ROCHDALE ROAD 106 0 0 106 232 0 0 0 232 THE CLOSE, ROCHDALE ROAD 4 0 0 4 12 0 0 0 12 RUDYARD AVENUE 32 0 0 32 66 0 0 0 66 SHELLEY AVENUE 16 0 0 16 25 0 0 0 25 HIGHER FOLD, STANYCLIFFE LANE 15 0 0 15 17 0 0 0 17

Page 156 STANYCLIFFE LANE 40 0 0 40 73 0 1 (1.37%) 0 72 (-1.37%) SUMMERFIELD DRIVE 49 0 0 49 96 0 0 0 96 TENNYSON ROAD 106 0 0 106 183 2 (1.09%) 0 0 185 (1.09%) VALLEY ROAD 46 0 0 46 91 0 2 (2.20%) 0 89 (-2.20%) WHITEGATES ROAD 22 0 0 22 47 0 0 0 47 WORDSWORTH ROAD 26 0 0 26 47 0 0 0 47 6otl 7or 8 ` 9 01403 ) 05 B)C4HDE 0154@ 31@@2 0A B)C3HDE A3 B)C2@DE 0 31@H@ B9)C30DE

QE - ADELAIDE STREET 3 0 0 3 6 0 0 0 6 ALBERT STREET 9 0 0 9 10 0 0 0 10 AMY STREET 24 0 0 24 42 0 0 0 42 BAKER STREET 10 0 0 10 19 0 0 0 19 EDMONDS STREET 19 0 0 19 25 0 0 0 25 GILMOUR STREET 42 0 0 42 58 1 (1.72%) 1 (1.72%) 0 58 GREEN STREET 146 0 0 146 239 0 0 0 239 GREENBANK TERRACE 12 0 0 12 15 0 0 0 15 HANSON STREET 3 0 0 3 5 0 0 0 5 HIGHFIELD STREET 30 0 0 30 52 0 0 0 52 HILTON FOLD LANE 50 0 0 50 81 0 1 (1.23%) 0 80 (-1.23%) HORNBY STREET 5 0 0 5 7 0 0 0 7 HULBERT STREET 42 0 0 42 70 0 0 0 70 WOLSTENVALE CLOSE, HULBERT 30 0 0 30 34 0 1 (2.94%) 0 33 (-2.94%) STREET SPRINGVALE COURT, JACKSON 20 0 0 20 25 0 0 0 25 STREET

ELECSTAT - Elector Statistics by Area/PD/Street Page: 98 Elector Stttc  reStreet

including other electors Printed: 28 June 2011 o e Elector Street etl  !rt ##e# to elete#( rre't  !rt ##e# to elete# &&lc't ( rre't  l"e# $e%ter  l"e# $e%ter e'#'%

QE - JAMES ANDREW STREET 2 0 0 2 3 0 0 0 3 JOPSON STREET 24 0 0 24 48 2 (4.17%) 1 (2.08%) 0 49 (2.08%) LANGTON STREET 7 0 0 7 10 1 (10.00%) 0 0 11 (10.00%) LARKHILL COURT 62 0 0 62 76 0 0 0 76 LITTLE GREEN 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NEWPORT STREET 22 0 0 22 48 0 0 0 48 NORMAN CLOSE 13 0 0 13 14 0 0 0 14 NORMAN STREET 84 0 0 84 140 0 4 (2.86%) 0 136 (-2.86%) OLDHAM ROAD 100 0 0 100 130 0 4 (3.08%) 0 126 (-3.08%) OTHER ELECTORS 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 TETLOW STREET, PEACH BANK 32 0 0 32 34 0 1 (2.94%) 0 33 (-2.94%) HOUSE Page 157 PEACH BANK 6 0 0 6 8 0 0 0 8 PILKINGTON STREET 58 0 0 58 103 0 2 (1.94%) 0 101 (-1.94%) SPRING VALE 22 0 0 22 43 0 0 0 43 TAYLOR STREET 27 0 0 27 39 0 0 0 39 TEMPLE STREET 8 0 0 8 15 0 0 0 15 TETLOW STREET 9 0 0 9 15 0 1 (6.67%) 0 14 (-6.67%) THORNLEY STREET 38 0 0 38 61 0 1 (1.64%) 0 60 (-1.64%) TONGE MEADOW 42 0 0 42 72 0 0 0 72 TOWNLEY STREET 31 0 0 31 49 0 1 (2.04%) 0 48 (-2.04%) VICTORIA STREET 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 2 WILLIAM STREET 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 OFF, WILLIAM STREET 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 6otl 7or 8 `E 9 01)32 ) ) 01)32 01@44 H B)CA@DE 05 B0C03DE ) 01@5@ B9)C55DE

QF - GREY STREET 28 0 0 28 44 1 (2.27%) 0 0 45 (2.27%) MARKET PLACE 3 0 0 3 4 0 0 0 4 EXETER COURT, MARKET STREET 48 0 0 48 56 1 (1.79%) 0 0 57 (1.79%) MARKET STREET 6 0 0 6 9 0 0 0 9 MILTON STREET 17 0 0 17 33 0 0 0 33 MORTON STREET 10 0 0 10 22 0 0 0 22 SADLER STREET 14 0 0 14 26 0 0 0 26 NINIAN COURT, SADLER STREET 48 0 0 48 55 0 1 (1.82%) 0 54 (-1.82%)

ELECSTAT - Elector Statistics by Area/PD/Street Page: 99 Elector Stttc  reStreet

including other electors Printed: 28 June 2011 o e Elector Street etl  !rt ##e# to elete#( rre't  !rt ##e# to elete# &&lc't ( rre't  l"e# $e%ter  l"e# $e%ter e'#'%

QF - SUFFIELD STREET 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 WOOD STREET 12 0 0 12 25 0 0 0 25 6otl 7or 8 `! 9 05F ) ) 05F AFH A B)CF3DE 0 B)C32DE ) AF@ B)C32DE QP$6 TSIE6PQ H124A 0B)C)ADE 32B)CFFDE H12@F 51))F A2 B)C3ADE F0 B)C54DE 0 F142A B9)C@2DE Page 158

ELECSTAT - Elector Statistics by Area/PD/Street Page: 100 Elector Stttc  reStreet

including other electors Printed: 28 June 2011 o e Elector Street etl  !rt ##e# to elete#( rre't  !rt ##e# to elete# &&lc't ( rre't  l"e# $e%ter  l"e# $e%ter e'#'%

IA - ALEXANDER DRIVE 17 0 0 17 35 0 0 0 35 BRAKEHOUSE CLOSE 8 0 0 8 15 0 0 0 15 BRANDON STREET 5 0 0 5 9 0 0 0 9 BRIDGE STREET 5 0 0 5 6 0 0 0 6 BUCKLEY HILL LANE 17 0 0 17 22 0 0 0 22 CROSSLEY STREET 15 0 0 15 23 0 0 0 23 ENTWISTLE STREET 8 0 0 8 10 0 0 0 10 FOX STREET 2 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 2 FURNESS CLOSE 12 0 0 12 19 0 1 (5.26%) 0 18 (-5.26%) GEORGE STREET,FIRGROVE 3 0 0 3 6 0 0 0 6 HALLCROFT GARDENS 23 0 0 23 43 0 0 0 43 HALLIWELL STREET, MILNROW 49 0 0 49 82 0 0 0 82 Page 159 HEBBLE BUTT CLOSE 30 0 18(60.00%) 12 52 0 2 (3.85%) 0 50 (-3.85%) HOYLES TERRACE 4 0 0 4 5 0 0 0 5 LAYTHE BARN CLOSE 37 0 0 37 45 0 1 (2.22%) 0 44 (-2.22%) LEYFIELD ROAD 8 0 0 8 18 0 0 0 18 MONKS CLOSE 17 0 0 17 26 0 0 0 26 MOORHOUSE FARM 15 0 0 15 27 0 1 (3.70%) 0 26 (-3.70%) MOORHOUSE FOLD 5 0 0 5 10 0 0 0 10 NALL STREET 16 0 0 16 25 0 1 (4.00%) 0 24 (-4.00%) OTHER ELECTORS 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 ROCHDALE ROAD 103 0 0 103 172 2 (1.16%) 7 (4.07%) 0 167 (-2.91%) THISTLEYFIELD, ROCHDALE ROAD 31 0 0 31 31 0 0 0 31 SELBY CLOSE 32 0 0 32 48 0 1 (2.08%) 0 47 (-2.08%) SHORE STREET 4 0 0 4 4 0 1 (25.00%) 0 3 (-25.00%) THE CRAY 85 0 0 85 105 0 1 (0.95%) 0 104 (-0.95%) THISTLE GREEN 7 0 0 7 13 0 0 0 13 TURBARY WALK 30 0 0 30 57 0 0 0 57 UNCOUTH ROAD 5 0 0 5 6 0 0 0 6 UPPER STONE DRIVE 31 0 0 31 46 0 0 0 46 WELBECK CLOSE 15 0 0 15 33 2 (6.06%) 2 (6.06%) 0 33 WESLEY STREET 5 0 0 5 10 0 0 0 10 WESTON STREET 6 0 0 6 7 0 0 0 7 WHALLEY CLOSE 5 0 0 5 7 0 0 0 7

ELECSTAT - Elector Statistics by Area/PD/Street Page: 101 Elector Stttc  reStreet

including other electors Printed: 28 June 2011 o e Elector Street etl  !rt ##e# to elete#( rre't  !rt ##e# to elete# &&lc't ( rre't  l"e# $e%ter  l"e# $e%ter e'#'%

IA - WHITEHEAD STREET 7 0 0 7 10 0 1 (10.00%) 0 9 (-10.00%) WINDSOR TERRACE 7 0 0 7 14 0 0 0 14 WOBURN CLOSE 6 0 0 6 10 0 0 0 10 6otl 7or 8 S 9 2F2 ) 05 BAC22DE 2@5 01)@3 H B)C35DE 04 B0C5)DE ) 01)35 B90CHADE

IB - ALBERT ROYDS STREET 74 0 0 74 136 0 2 (1.47%) 0 134 (-1.47%) ARCON CLOSE 19 0 0 19 21 0 2 (9.52%) 0 19 (-9.52%) BELFIELD LANE 9 0 0 9 16 0 0 0 16 BELFIELD LAWN 3 0 0 3 5 0 0 0 5

Page 160 BROCKLEBANK ROAD 20 0 0 20 35 0 0 0 35 CEDAR BANK CLOSE 10 0 0 10 18 0 0 0 18 CHADWICK STREET 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 COPPY BRIDGE DRIVE 66 0 9(13.64%) 57 84 0 2 (2.38%) 0 82 (-2.38%) CYPRESS GARDENS 11 0 0 11 21 0 0 0 21 DALTON AVENUE 6 0 0 6 9 0 0 0 9 DALTON CLOSE 54 0 0 54 62 0 1 (1.61%) 0 61 (-1.61%) DOBFIELD ROAD 1 0 0 1 4 0 0 0 4 EAST STREET 10 0 0 10 14 0 2 (14.29%) 0 12 (-14.29%) FIELD ROAD 28 0 0 28 61 0 0 0 61 FIRBARN CLOSE 11 0 0 11 23 0 0 0 23 FIRGROVE AVENUE 12 0 0 12 25 0 0 0 25 FIRGROVE GARDENS 37 0 0 37 63 0 0 0 63 HARTLEY PLACE 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 HARTLEY STREET 3 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 3 HEATLEY ROAD 49 0 0 49 64 0 0 0 64 HOLFORD WALK 11 0 0 11 18 0 1 (5.56%) 0 17 (-5.56%) REAR 117 ROCHDALE ROAD, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 HOLLYBANK COTTAGE JUNIPER DRIVE 69 0 0 69 129 0 0 0 129 KNOWL ROAD 55 0 0 55 95 0 0 0 95 LARCHWAY 11 0 0 11 25 0 0 0 25 LEIGH STREET 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 LIMEFIELD 10 0 0 10 19 0 0 0 19 MENTMORE ROAD 70 0 0 70 103 0 2 (1.94%) 0 101 (-1.94%)

ELECSTAT - Elector Statistics by Area/PD/Street Page: 102 Elector Stttc  reStreet

including other electors Printed: 28 June 2011 o e Elector Street etl  !rt ##e# to elete#( rre't  !rt ##e# to elete# &&lc't ( rre't  l"e# $e%ter  l"e# $e%ter e'#'%

IB - MILNROW ROAD 6 0 0 6 8 0 0 0 8 OTHER ELECTORS 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 2 PRINCESS ROAD 77 0 0 77 139 0 1 (0.72%) 0 138 (-0.72%) REDWOOD PARK GROVE 11 0 0 11 18 0 0 0 18 OAKLAND HOUSE, ROCHDALE ROAD 13 0 0 13 11 0 1 (9.09%) 0 10 (-9.09%) ROCHDALE ROAD 108 0 0 108 167 1 (0.60%) 5 (2.99%) 0 163 (-2.40%) ST ANNS ROAD 68 0 0 68 118 0 0 0 118 UNCOUTH ROAD 4 0 0 4 12 0 0 0 12 WATERMILL CLOSE 28 0 0 28 32 0 0 0 32 WEST STREET 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 WILDS BUILDINGS 2 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 2 WILLOWS COTTAGES 3 0 0 3 5 0 0 0 5 Page 161 WILLOWS LANE 88 0 0 88 147 0 1 (0.68%) 0 146 (-0.68%) 6otl 7or 8 SG 9 01)2A ) 4 B)C5@DE 01)@3 01F0F 0 B)C)2DE A) B0C02DE ) 01245 B90C00DE

IC - ALBERT ROYDS STREET 36 0 0 36 59 1 (1.69%) 0 0 60 (1.69%) BEAL CRESCENT 43 0 0 43 79 2 (2.53%) 0 0 81 (2.53%) BELFIELD MILL, BELFIELD MILL LANE 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 BELFIELD MILL LANE 30 0 0 30 45 0 0 0 45 BELLSHILL CRESCENT 120 0 1(0.83%) 119 233 2 (0.86%) 5 (2.15%) 0 230 (-1.29%) BELTON AVENUE 34 0 0 34 62 2 (3.23%) 0 0 64 (3.23%) BLACKSTONE AVENUE 20 0 0 20 41 0 0 0 41 CLOVER HALL CRESCENT 115 0 0 115 195 2 (1.03%) 0 0 197 (1.03%) EAFIELD ROAD 35 0 0 35 64 0 0 0 64 FARM WALK 30 0 0 30 55 0 1 (1.82%) 0 54 (-1.82%) OTHER ELECTORS 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 (100.00%) 0 0 (-100.00%) 6otl 7or 8 S( 9 H2@ ) 0 B)CAADE H2H 53H 4 B0C)5DE F B)C5HDE ) 532 B)CAHDE

ID - ALBERT ROYDS STREET 27 0 0 27 56 0 0 0 56 ARMSTRONG HURST CLOSE 58 0 0 58 167 0 0 0 167 BISHOP STREET 59 0 0 59 99 0 2 (2.02%) 0 97 (-2.02%) BRICKFIELD STREET 16 0 0 16 23 0 0 0 23 CALDER STREET 4 0 0 4 6 0 0 0 6

ELECSTAT - Elector Statistics by Area/PD/Street Page: 103 Elector Stttc  reStreet

including other electors Printed: 28 June 2011 o e Elector Street etl  !rt ##e# to elete#( rre't  !rt ##e# to elete# &&lc't ( rre't  l"e# $e%ter  l"e# $e%ter e'#'%

ID - CANON STREET 39 0 0 39 62 0 3 (4.84%) 0 59 (-4.84%) THE CLOISTERS, CANON STREET 16 0 0 16 19 1 (5.26%) 1 (5.26%) 0 19 CLARKE STREET 15 0 0 15 26 1 (3.85%) 0 0 27 (3.85%) COOK STREET 15 0 0 15 36 0 0 0 36 COOK TERRACE 11 0 0 11 15 0 0 0 15 COOPERS WALK 11 0 0 11 27 2 (7.41%) 0 0 29 (7.41%) DEACON STREET 20 0 0 20 36 1 (2.78%) 0 0 37 (2.78%) DITTON MEAD CLOSE 44 0 0 44 135 1 (0.74%) 0 0 136 (0.74%) DOVER STREET 35 0 0 35 40 0 1 (2.50%) 0 39 (-2.50%) EDGAR STREET 3 0 0 3 8 0 0 0 8 Page 162 FILEY STREET 7 0 0 7 10 0 0 0 10 HALIFAX ROAD 40 0 0 40 88 0 0 0 88 HAROLD STREET 8 0 0 8 12 0 0 0 12 HENDERSON STREET 89 0 0 89 104 1 (0.96%) 2 (1.92%) 0 103 (-0.96%) HOWARTH CROSS STREET 18 0 0 18 34 0 0 0 34 LEACH CLOSE 8 0 0 8 26 0 0 0 26 LOBLEY CLOSE 11 0 0 11 21 0 0 0 21 MARTHA'S TERRACE 2 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 1 MAYFIELD TERRACE 7 0 0 7 17 0 0 0 17 MILLGATE 11 0 0 11 21 0 0 0 21 NEWMAN STREET 11 0 0 11 17 0 1 (5.88%) 0 16 (-5.88%) OTHER ELECTORS 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 PRESCOTT STREET 9 0 0 9 14 0 0 0 14 ROACH VALE 8 0 0 8 12 0 0 0 12 ROCH STREET 26 0 0 26 41 2 (4.88%) 1 (2.44%) 0 42 (2.44%) BRAESIDE NURSING HOME, 8, 1 0 0 1 21 0 7 (33.33%) 0 14 (-33.33%) ROYAL STREET ROYAL STREET 11 0 0 11 17 0 1 (5.88%) 0 16 (-5.88%) SPOKESHAVE WAY 16 0 0 16 25 0 0 0 25 SPRING MILL WALK 8 0 0 8 20 0 0 0 20 STONIE HEYS AVENUE 18 0 0 18 48 0 0 0 48 WINDHAM STREET 5 0 0 5 10 0 1 (10.00%) 0 9 (-10.00%) 6otl 7or 8 S 9 255 ) ) 255 0130H 4 B)C25DE A) B0C@ADE ) 013)3 B9)C5HDE

IE -

ELECSTAT - Elector Statistics by Area/PD/Street Page: 104 Elector Stttc  reStreet

including other electors Printed: 28 June 2011 o e Elector Street etl  !rt ##e# to elete#( rre't  !rt ##e# to elete# &&lc't ( rre't  l"e# $e%ter  l"e# $e%ter e'#'%

IE - BACK LOUISE STREET 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 BUCKLEY LANE 12 0 0 12 22 0 0 0 22 BUCKLEY VIEW 142 0 0 142 265 1 (0.38%) 7 (2.64%) 0 259 (-2.26%) 178-190, GREAT HOWARTH 13 0 0 13 12 1 (8.33%) 3 (25.00%) 0 10 (-16.67%) KINGFISHER COURT, GREAT 32 0 0 32 37 0 0 0 37 HOWARTH GREAT HOWARTH 149 0 0 149 216 2 (0.93%) 6 (2.78%) 0 212 (-1.85%) HALIFAX ROAD 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 KENTMERE AVENUE 12 0 0 12 18 0 0 0 18 LORNE STREET 6 0 0 6 9 0 0 0 9 LOUISE CLOSE 17 0 0 17 36 0 0 0 36 LOUISE GARDENS 57 0 0 57 90 0 0 0 90 Page 163 LOUISE STREET 38 0 0 38 60 1 (1.67%) 2 (3.33%) 0 59 (-1.67%) LOW BANK 21 0 0 21 21 0 2 (9.52%) 0 19 (-9.52%) LOW HILL 71 0 0 71 88 0 4 (4.55%) 0 84 (-4.55%) MAITLAND CLOSE 22 0 0 22 35 0 0 0 35 OTHER ELECTORS 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 2 RHODES STREET 44 0 0 44 81 0 0 0 81 STEVENSON SQUARE 9 0 0 9 12 0 0 0 12 WARDLE EDGE 104 0 0 104 161 1 (0.62%) 3 (1.86%) 0 159 (-1.24%) WARDLE GARDENS 14 0 0 14 29 0 0 0 29 WARDLE ROAD 25 0 0 25 44 0 0 0 44 WESLEY CLOSE 17 0 0 17 34 1 (2.94%) 0 0 35 (2.94%) 6otl 7or 8 SE 9 5)5 ) ) 5)5 01AF3 F B)C@@DE AF BAC0ADE ) 01A@3 B90C@FDE

IF - ANN STREET, HURSTEAD 3 0 0 3 4 0 0 0 4 ASH CLOSE 32 0 0 32 46 0 2 (4.35%) 0 44 (-4.35%) ASHBROOK CRESCENT 44 0 0 44 85 0 0 0 85 ASHBROOK HEY LANE 64 0 0 64 123 5 (4.07%) 0 0 128 (4.07%) BIRCH HEY CLOSE 19 0 0 19 39 0 0 0 39 BIRCH VIEW, BIRCH ROAD 23 0 0 23 24 0 3 (12.50%) 0 21 (-12.50%) BIRCH ROAD 47 0 0 47 95 0 0 0 95 BOWER AVENUE 74 0 0 74 116 0 0 0 116 BRADDOCK CLOSE 1 0 0 1 4 0 0 0 4

ELECSTAT - Elector Statistics by Area/PD/Street Page: 105 Elector Stttc  reStreet

including other electors Printed: 28 June 2011 o e Elector Street etl  !rt ##e# to elete#( rre't  !rt ##e# to elete# &&lc't ( rre't  l"e# $e%ter  l"e# $e%ter e'#'%

IF - ASHCROFT, BRADDOCK CLOSE 43 0 0 43 48 0 0 0 48 CROFT HILL COURT, BRADDOCK 45 0 0 45 53 0 2 (3.77%) 0 51 (-3.77%) CLOSE GREENACRES COURT, BRADDOCK 24 0 0 24 28 0 0 0 28 CLOSE WESTCLIFFE HOUSE, BRADDOCK 4 0 0 4 10 0 0 0 10 CLOSE BRIDGE STREET 10 0 0 10 17 0 0 0 17 BROOK HEY CLOSE 14 0 0 14 15 0 0 0 15 COOPER STREET 2 0 0 2 3 0 0 0 3 CORN MILL CLOSE 22 0 0 22 28 0 0 0 28 Page 164 CROFT SQUARE 3 0 0 3 6 2 (33.33%) 2 (33.33%) 0 6 CROFT STREET 35 0 0 35 17 21 (123.53%) 0 0 38 (123.53%) GREAT BENT CLOSE 21 0 0 21 34 0 0 0 34 GREEN MEADOW 70 0 0 70 114 0 2 (1.75%) 0 112 (-1.75%) GREENGATE CLOSE 32 0 0 32 46 0 2 (4.35%) 0 44 (-4.35%) HURSTEAD HOUSE NURSING HOME, 1 0 0 1 22 0 3 (13.64%) 0 19 (-13.64%) HALIFAX ROAD HALIFAX ROAD 52 0 0 52 81 0 0 0 81 HOLLOWSPELL 42 0 0 42 79 2 (2.53%) 1 (1.27%) 0 80 (1.27%) HOMESTEAD GARDENS 21 0 0 21 32 0 0 0 32 HOWARTH FARM WAY 23 0 0 23 28 0 0 0 28 HOWARTH GREEN 20 0 0 20 24 0 0 0 24 HURSTEAD GREEN 3 0 0 3 5 0 0 0 5 HURSTEAD MEWS 3 0 0 3 2 0 0 0 2 LITTLE HOWARTH WAY 3 0 0 3 4 0 0 0 4 MILL HOUSE CLOSE 18 0 0 18 25 0 0 0 25 NOBLE MEADOW 19 0 0 19 34 2 (5.88%) 1 (2.94%) 0 35 (2.94%) OAKCLIFFE ROAD 42 0 0 42 88 0 0 0 88 RALPH SHERWIN COURT, OFF 60 0 0 60 69 0 5 (7.25%) 0 64 (-7.25%) OAKCLIFFE ROAD OLD CLAY DRIVE 6 0 0 6 12 0 0 0 12 OTHER ELECTORS 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 RYEFIELDS 40 0 0 40 41 0 1 (2.44%) 0 40 (-2.44%) STEPS MEADOW 36 0 0 36 62 0 1 (1.61%) 0 61 (-1.61%) THIMBLE CLOSE 44 0 0 44 94 0 0 0 94

ELECSTAT - Elector Statistics by Area/PD/Street Page: 106 Elector Stttc  reStreet

including other electors Printed: 28 June 2011 o e Elector Street etl  !rt ##e# to elete#( rre't  !rt ##e# to elete# &&lc't ( rre't  l"e# $e%ter  l"e# $e%ter e'#'%

IF - THE THIMBLES, THIMBLE CLOSE 80 0 0 80 98 0 4 (4.08%) 0 94 (-4.08%) TITHE BARN CLOSE 20 0 0 20 31 0 1 (3.23%) 0 30 (-3.23%) WALK MILL CLOSE 42 0 0 42 56 0 0 0 56 WEST AVENUE 3 0 0 3 4 0 0 0 4 6otl 7or 8 S! 9 01A00 ) ) 01A00 015HF 3A B0CF3DE 3) B0C2ADE ) 015H4 B)C00DE STIIG$SUE Q !S$U$PaE H140) ) A5B)C@FDE H155A 51)35 2A B)CFFDE 0A3 B0C@3DE ) F14FF B9)CF2DE Page 165

ELECSTAT - Elector Statistics by Area/PD/Street Page: 107 Elector Stttc  reStreet

including other electors Printed: 28 June 2011 o e Elector Street etl  !rt ##e# to elete#( rre't  !rt ##e# to elete# &&lc't ( rre't  l"e# $e%ter  l"e# $e%ter e'#'%

OA - ARMITAGE CLOSE 57 0 0 57 98 0 0 0 98 BOARDMAN LANE 36 0 0 36 51 0 1 (1.96%) 0 50 (-1.96%) BONNY BROW STREET 43 0 0 43 75 1 (1.33%) 0 0 76 (1.33%) BOOTH BRIDGE CLOSE 7 0 0 7 14 0 0 0 14 BOOTHROYDEN CLOSE 22 0 0 22 43 1 (2.33%) 0 0 44 (2.33%) BOOTHROYDEN ROAD 11 0 0 11 21 0 0 0 21 BRAYSTON FOLD 13 0 0 13 30 0 0 0 30 BROAD STREET 30 0 0 30 55 0 0 0 55 WOODS COURT, BROAD STREET 40 0 0 40 40 0 0 0 40 CHAPEL WALK 5 0 0 5 8 0 0 0 8 Page 166 CLARKSON CLOSE 25 0 0 25 38 0 0 0 38 CROFT GATES ROAD 88 0 0 88 116 0 0 0 116 DALTON ROAD 34 0 0 34 74 0 0 0 74 EGERTON STREET 1 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 3 FOXALL CLOSE 9 0 0 9 15 0 0 0 15 FOXALL STREET 52 0 0 52 73 0 0 0 73 GREAT HEATON CLOSE 10 0 0 10 22 0 0 0 22 HANGING BIRCH 5 0 0 5 8 0 0 0 8 HEATON STREET 9 0 0 9 12 0 0 0 12 HEYWOOD OLD ROAD 11 0 0 11 17 0 0 0 17 HIGH HURST CLOSE 6 0 0 6 12 0 0 0 12 HILTON WALK 30 0 0 30 42 0 0 0 42 KELVIN AVENUE 12 0 0 12 17 0 0 0 17 LANDS END ROAD 19 0 0 19 32 0 1 (3.13%) 0 31 (-3.13%) LISTER ROAD 27 0 0 27 49 0 0 0 49 LITCHFIELD COURT 10 0 0 10 9 0 0 0 9 MANCHESTER OLD ROAD 144 0 0 144 230 0 3 (1.30%) 0 227 (-1.30%) NORTH MANCHESTER GOLF CLUB, 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 MANCHESTER OLD ROAD MARQUESS WAY 0 58 0 58 0 2 0 0 2 MOUNT PLEASANT 20 0 0 20 28 0 1 (3.57%) 0 27 (-3.57%) NEWTON ROAD 10 0 0 10 23 0 0 0 23 OTHER ELECTORS 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 2 POOL BANK STREET 57 0 0 57 82 0 0 0 82 RHODES GREEN 3 0 0 3 7 0 0 0 7

ELECSTAT - Elector Statistics by Area/PD/Street Page: 108 Elector Stttc  reStreet

including other electors Printed: 28 June 2011 o e Elector Street etl  !rt ##e# to elete#( rre't  !rt ##e# to elete# &&lc't ( rre't  l"e# $e%ter  l"e# $e%ter e'#'%

OA - SCHOOL SIDE LANE 39 0 0 39 75 1 (1.33%) 1 (1.33%) 0 75 SCHWABE STREET 6 0 0 6 13 0 0 0 13 TOP SCHWABE STREET 5 0 0 5 7 0 0 0 7 VISCOUNT DRIVE 0 41 0 41 0 0 0 0 0 LITTLE HEATON NURSING HOME, 1 0 0 1 6 1 (16.67%) 1 (16.67%) 0 6 WALKER STREET WALKER STREET 71 0 0 71 102 0 1 (0.98%) 0 101 (-0.98%) WELLENS WAY 45 0 0 45 83 0 1 (1.20%) 0 82 (-1.20%) WELLS CLOSE 18 0 0 18 22 0 0 0 22 WEST GREEN 50 0 0 50 91 2 (2.20%) 0 0 93 (2.20%) WILTON STREET 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 YATES STREET 37 0 0 37 59 2 (3.39%) 2 (3.39%) 0 59 Page 167 6otl 7or 8 P 9 010A0 44B5C53DE ) 01AA) 015)2 0) B)C@@DE 0A B)C22DE ) 015)H B9)C00DE

OB - ALKRINGTON PARK ROAD 6 0 0 6 10 0 0 0 10 ARCHER PARK 11 0 0 11 17 0 0 0 17 ARNDALE CENTRE 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 ASPELL CLOSE 35 0 0 35 63 0 0 0 63 BEECH STREET 15 0 0 15 19 0 0 0 19 BROOMFIELD PARK 4 0 0 4 6 0 0 0 6 BURTON STREET 16 0 0 16 24 0 0 0 24 CROSS STREET 15 0 0 15 22 0 0 0 22 CHISHOLM COURT, GREAT ARBOR 33 0 0 33 32 0 2 (6.25%) 0 30 (-6.25%) WAY GREAT ARBOR WAY 64 0 0 64 81 3 (3.70%) 0 0 84 (3.70%) GREENSON DRIVE 4 0 0 4 10 0 0 0 10 HARLEY COURT 14 0 0 14 20 0 0 0 20 HARLEY ROAD 14 0 0 14 19 0 1 (5.26%) 0 18 (-5.26%) HAROLD STREET 32 0 0 32 54 0 0 0 54 HYDE SQUARE 15 0 0 15 32 0 0 0 32 JOHNSON GROVE 4 0 0 4 12 0 0 0 12 KEMP STREET 10 0 0 10 16 0 0 0 16 KINGS DRIVE 30 0 0 30 52 0 0 0 52 LAWNBANK CLOSE 31 0 0 31 49 0 0 0 49

ELECSTAT - Elector Statistics by Area/PD/Street Page: 109 Elector Stttc  reStreet

including other electors Printed: 28 June 2011 o e Elector Street etl  !rt ##e# to elete#( rre't  !rt ##e# to elete# &&lc't ( rre't  l"e# $e%ter  l"e# $e%ter e'#'%

OB - LIME GARDENS 21 0 0 21 31 0 0 0 31 LITTLEHILLS CLOSE 27 0 0 27 50 0 1 (2.00%) 0 49 (-2.00%) LYNDHURST GARDENS 4 0 0 4 6 0 0 0 6 LYNDHURST 1 0 0 1 5 0 0 0 5 LIMEFIELD COTTAGES, 5 0 0 5 11 0 0 0 11 MANCHESTER OLD ROAD MANCHESTER OLD ROAD 51 0 0 51 83 0 0 0 83 MICHAEL STREET 12 0 0 12 22 0 0 0 22 OTHER ELECTORS 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 PARKFIELD DRIVE 30 0 0 30 50 0 0 0 50

Page 168 PARKFIELD 102 0 0 102 114 0 1 (0.88%) 0 113 (-0.88%) PRINCESS DRIVE 20 0 0 20 43 0 0 0 43 SCHOLARS WAY 15 0 0 15 24 0 0 0 24 SEFTON CLOSE 11 0 0 11 22 0 0 0 22 SEFTON ROAD 21 0 0 21 40 0 0 0 40 SILK STREET 11 0 0 11 13 0 0 0 13 SUNNY BROW ROAD 39 0 0 39 74 2 (2.70%) 0 0 76 (2.70%) THE CRESCENT 8 0 0 8 22 0 0 0 22 TOP STREET 4 0 0 4 9 0 0 0 9 TRINITY STREET 17 0 0 17 21 0 0 0 21 WEAVERS COURT 2 0 0 2 3 0 0 0 3 WEAVERS ROAD 10 0 0 10 12 0 0 0 12 WENTWORTH CLOSE 7 0 0 7 11 0 0 0 11 THE ACRES, WENTWORTH CLOSE 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 WHITTAKER STREET 3 0 0 3 5 0 0 0 5 WOOD STREET 39 0 0 39 60 1 (1.67%) 0 0 61 (1.67%) 6otl 7or 8 PG 9 502 ) ) 502 01AF) 2 B)CHFDE @ B)C34DE ) 01AF0 B)C)5DE

OC - ALKRINGTON GREEN 20 0 0 20 46 0 0 0 46 ALKRINGTON HALL ROAD NORTH 17 0 0 17 35 0 0 0 35 ALKRINGTON HALL ROAD SOUTH 36 0 0 36 70 0 1 (1.43%) 0 69 (-1.43%) ALKRINGTON WOOD 1 0 0 1 4 0 0 0 4 ASH WALK 20 0 0 20 33 0 2 (6.06%) 0 31 (-6.06%) BEECH WALK 21 0 0 21 44 0 0 0 44

ELECSTAT - Elector Statistics by Area/PD/Street Page: 110 Elector Stttc  reStreet

including other electors Printed: 28 June 2011 o e Elector Street etl  !rt ##e# to elete#( rre't  !rt ##e# to elete# &&lc't ( rre't  l"e# $e%ter  l"e# $e%ter e'#'%

OC - COLSON DRIVE 19 0 0 19 38 0 0 0 38 CONWAY CLOSE 48 0 0 48 96 0 0 0 96 CROW HILL NORTH 39 0 0 39 79 0 0 0 79 CROW HILL SOUTH 62 0 0 62 136 0 0 0 136 DENE DRIVE 5 0 0 5 14 0 0 0 14 DINGLE ROAD 36 0 0 36 72 0 0 0 72 HALL DRIVE 42 0 0 42 88 0 1 (1.14%) 0 87 (-1.14%) HOME DRIVE 20 0 0 20 38 0 1 (2.63%) 0 37 (-2.63%) IVY DRIVE 25 0 0 25 45 0 1 (2.22%) 0 44 (-2.22%) KINGSWAY 70 0 0 70 146 1 (0.68%) 0 0 147 (0.68%) KIRKWAY 18 0 0 18 24 0 0 0 24 LAKE DRIVE 10 0 0 10 17 0 0 0 17 Page 169 MAINWAY 16 0 0 16 39 1 (2.56%) 4 (10.26%) 0 36 (-7.69%) MANCHESTER NEW ROAD 77 0 0 77 149 0 4 (2.68%) 0 145 (-2.68%) MANOR ROAD 32 0 0 32 70 0 1 (1.43%) 0 69 (-1.43%) MEADOW ROAD 23 0 0 23 55 0 0 0 55 MOUNT ROAD 27 0 0 27 50 0 2 (4.00%) 0 48 (-4.00%) OTHER ELECTORS 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 PARKSIDE 26 0 0 26 54 0 0 0 54 ROOKWAY 26 0 0 26 51 2 (3.92%) 0 0 53 (3.92%) RYDAL AVENUE 10 0 0 10 20 0 0 0 20 UPLANDS 54 0 0 54 102 0 1 (0.98%) 0 101 (-0.98%) WEST CRESCENT 13 0 0 13 25 0 0 0 25 WOODFIELD ROAD 20 0 0 20 48 0 0 0 48 WOODLANDS WAY 18 0 0 18 40 0 0 0 40 6otl 7or 8 P( 9 5@A ) ) 5@A 01FA4 H B)CA3DE 05 B0C)HDE ) 01F0@ B9)C50DE

OD - ALCESTER CLOSE 8 0 0 8 10 0 0 0 10 BOARDMAN FOLD CLOSE 12 0 0 12 32 0 0 0 32 BOARDMAN FOLD ROAD 8 0 0 8 20 0 0 0 20 BRACKLEY DRIVE 23 0 0 23 47 0 3 (6.38%) 0 44 (-6.38%) CHELTENHAM GREEN 10 0 0 10 16 0 0 0 16 CHELTENHAM ROAD 63 0 0 63 110 0 1 (0.91%) 0 109 (-0.91%) EVESHAM CLOSE 17 0 0 17 32 0 0 0 32

ELECSTAT - Elector Statistics by Area/PD/Street Page: 111 Elector Stttc  reStreet

including other electors Printed: 28 June 2011 o e Elector Street etl  !rt ##e# to elete#( rre't  !rt ##e# to elete# &&lc't ( rre't  l"e# $e%ter  l"e# $e%ter e'#'%

OD - EVESHAM GARDENS 15 0 0 15 39 0 0 0 39 EVESHAM ROAD 35 0 0 35 69 0 1 (1.45%) 0 68 (-1.45%) GLOUCESTER ROAD 54 0 0 54 116 2 (1.72%) 1 (0.86%) 0 117 (0.86%) HANLEY CLOSE 9 0 0 9 14 0 1 (7.14%) 0 13 (-7.14%) HARDFIELD ROAD 137 0 0 137 254 0 6 (2.36%) 0 248 (-2.36%) KINGSWAY 36 0 0 36 68 0 0 0 68 KIRKWAY 72 0 0 72 132 0 0 0 132 LEDBURY CLOSE 21 0 0 21 41 0 0 0 41 MAINWAY 48 0 0 48 110 0 0 0 110 MALVERN ROAD 48 0 0 48 99 0 0 0 99 Page 170 MANOR ROAD 18 0 0 18 33 0 0 0 33 MERE AVENUE 18 0 0 18 39 0 2 (5.13%) 0 37 (-5.13%) OTHER ELECTORS 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 2 STRATFORD ROAD 14 0 0 14 33 0 0 0 33 TENBURY DRIVE 15 0 0 15 31 0 0 0 31 UPTON CLOSE 9 0 0 9 17 0 0 0 17 WALSINGHAM AVENUE 42 0 0 42 95 0 0 0 95 WARWICK CLOSE 21 0 0 21 36 0 0 0 36 WARWICK ROAD 122 0 0 122 223 0 1 (0.45%) 0 222 (-0.45%) WORCESTER ROAD 6 0 0 6 12 0 0 0 12 6otl 7or 8 P 9 55A ) ) 55A 01F3) A B)C0ADE 02 B)C4ADE ) 01F02 B9)C50DE

OE - ALRESFORD ROAD 17 0 0 17 46 0 0 0 46 BANBURY ROAD 59 0 0 59 116 0 0 0 116 BOARDMAN FOLD ROAD 50 0 0 50 100 0 0 0 100 CROSSBY CLOSE 20 0 0 20 35 0 0 0 35 DUFFIELD GARDENS 8 0 0 8 8 0 0 0 8 DUFFIELD ROAD 22 0 0 22 47 0 0 0 47 ELLERAY ROAD 49 0 0 49 104 0 0 0 104 GREENWAY 26 0 0 26 53 0 0 0 53 LOWER GREEN 7 0 0 7 14 0 0 0 14 MAINWAY 14 0 0 14 30 0 0 0 30 MALVERN ROAD 30 0 0 30 49 0 0 0 49 MANCHESTER NEW ROAD 34 0 0 34 61 0 0 0 61

ELECSTAT - Elector Statistics by Area/PD/Street Page: 112 Elector Stttc  reStreet

including other electors Printed: 28 June 2011 o e Elector Street etl  !rt ##e# to elete#( rre't  !rt ##e# to elete# &&lc't ( rre't  l"e# $e%ter  l"e# $e%ter e'#'%

OE - CAJETAN HOUSE, MOSS LANE 21 0 0 21 21 0 0 0 21 MOSS LANE 39 0 0 39 73 0 1 (1.37%) 0 72 (-1.37%) MOSSWAY 172 0 0 172 349 0 1 (0.29%) 0 348 (-0.29%) OTHER ELECTORS 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 PEBWORTH CLOSE 25 0 0 25 58 0 3 (5.17%) 0 55 (-5.17%) STROUD CLOSE 20 0 0 20 34 3 (8.82%) 2 (5.88%) 0 35 (2.94%) WORCESTER ROAD 53 0 0 53 102 0 0 0 102 6otl 7or 8 PE 9 22F ) ) 22F 013)) 3 B)CA3DE F B)C@HDE ) 01A42 B9)C30DE SPX6 TSIE6PQ H1335 44BACA5DE ) H1H3F F153@ A@ B)C3ADE @5 B)CFHDE ) F15)A B9)CHADE Page 171

ELECSTAT - Elector Statistics by Area/PD/Street Page: 113 Elector Stttc  reStreet

including other electors Printed: 28 June 2011 o e Elector Street etl  !rt ##e# to elete#( rre't  !rt ##e# to elete# &&lc't ( rre't  l"e# $e%ter  l"e# $e%ter e'#'%

FA - BROADLEY FOLD 3 0 0 3 9 0 0 0 9 BROADLEY LANE 1 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 3 FERN HILL 5 0 0 5 12 0 0 0 12 KNACKS LANE 7 0 0 7 18 0 0 0 18 LANEHEAD 3 0 0 3 7 0 0 0 7 OFF KNACKS LANE 2 0 0 2 4 0 0 0 4 OTHER ELECTORS 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 2 PRICKSHAW LANE 5 0 0 5 12 0 0 0 12 REDWOOD CLOSE 6 0 0 6 11 0 1 (9.09%) 0 10 (-9.09%) FAIR VIEW, ROOLEY MOOR ROAD 2 0 0 2 4 0 0 0 4 Page 172 ROOLEY MOOR ROAD 49 0 0 49 100 0 0 0 100 THE KNACKS, ROOLEY MOOR ROAD 4 0 0 4 10 0 0 0 10 ROWAN CLOSE 19 0 0 19 45 1 (2.22%) 0 0 46 (2.22%) SMALLSHAW ROAD 13 0 0 13 23 0 1 (4.35%) 0 22 (-4.35%) STONEHILL CRESCENT 20 0 0 20 35 0 0 2 35 STONEHILL DRIVE 44 0 0 44 101 0 0 0 101 STONEHILL ROAD 27 0 0 27 57 0 0 0 57 WOODHOUSE LANE 2 0 0 2 3 0 0 0 3 6otl 7or 8 ! 9 A03 ) ) A03 H@2 0 B)CAADE A B)CHHDE A H@@ B9)CAADE

FB - BROTHEROD HALL ROAD 124 0 0 124 207 0 2 (0.97%) 0 205 (-0.97%) DANIEL FOLD 62 0 0 62 113 0 1 (0.88%) 0 112 (-0.88%) DELL GARDENS 10 0 0 10 12 0 0 0 12 ELMPARK GATE 13 0 0 13 22 0 0 0 22 ELMPARK GROVE 18 0 0 18 32 0 0 0 32 ELMPARK VALE 10 0 0 10 19 0 0 0 19 ELMPARK VIEW 7 0 0 7 9 0 0 0 9 ELMPARK WAY 49 0 0 49 90 1 (1.11%) 0 0 91 (1.11%) FOLD GARDENS 10 0 0 10 12 1 (8.33%) 1 (8.33%) 0 12 HALL GARDENS 19 0 0 19 21 0 0 0 21 INGS AVENUE 11 0 0 11 22 0 1 (4.55%) 0 21 (-4.55%) REDFERN HOUSE, INGS AVENUE 16 0 0 16 16 0 1 (6.25%) 0 15 (-6.25%) INGS LANE 128 0 0 128 242 2 (0.83%) 5 (2.07%) 0 239 (-1.24%) MOUNTAIN ASH CLOSE 8 0 0 8 19 0 0 0 19

ELECSTAT - Elector Statistics by Area/PD/Street Page: 114 Elector Stttc  reStreet

including other electors Printed: 28 June 2011 o e Elector Street etl  !rt ##e# to elete#( rre't  !rt ##e# to elete# &&lc't ( rre't  l"e# $e%ter  l"e# $e%ter e'#'%

FB - MOUNTAIN ASH 95 0 0 95 176 0 2 (1.14%) 0 174 (-1.14%) OTHER ELECTORS 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 HOWCROFT HOUSE, ROOLEY MOOR 6 0 0 6 3 0 0 0 3 ROAD ROOLEY MOOR ROAD 62 0 0 62 125 0 0 0 125 WYCHERLEY ROAD 53 0 0 53 88 0 0 0 88 6otl 7or 8 !G 9 F)A ) ) F)A 01AA4 H B)C33DE 03 B0C)2DE ) 01AA) B9)CF3DE

FC - AMY STREET 37 0 0 37 64 0 0 0 64 BALMORAL AVENUE 4 0 0 4 5 0 0 0 5 CHERRY GROVE 7 0 0 7 15 0 0 0 15

Page 173 CUTGATE ROAD 115 0 0 115 188 1 (0.53%) 4 (2.13%) 0 185 (-1.60%) EDENFIELD ROAD 41 0 0 41 67 1 (1.49%) 2 (2.99%) 0 66 (-1.49%) SPRING TERRACE, EDENFIELD 3 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 3 ROAD LYNNWOOD DRIVE 43 0 0 43 77 0 1 (1.30%) 0 76 (-1.30%) MARTIN LANE 99 0 0 99 146 0 1 (0.68%) 0 145 (-0.68%) MEADOW VIEW HOME FOR AGED, 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 MEADOW VIEW MEADOW VIEW 61 0 0 61 87 0 1 (1.15%) 0 86 (-1.15%) MOORLAND TERRACE 2 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 2 OTHER ELECTORS 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 RAVENDALE CLOSE 60 0 0 60 70 0 2 (2.86%) 0 68 (-2.86%) SOMERSET GROVE 44 0 0 44 76 2 (2.63%) 0 0 78 (2.63%) SPOTLAND TOPS 67 0 0 67 92 0 1 (1.09%) 0 91 (-1.09%) 6otl 7or 8 !( 9 @5@ ) ) @5@ 543 H B)CH@DE 0A B0C3HDE ) 55@ B9)C4)DE

FD - AIR HILL TERRACE 5 0 0 5 7 0 0 0 7 BACK PATIENCE STREET 2 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 1 BAILDON ROAD 6 0 0 6 8 0 0 0 8 BALFOUR ROAD 16 0 0 16 24 0 1 (4.17%) 0 23 (-4.17%) BEAUFORT STREET 31 0 0 31 52 0 0 0 52 BELGRAVE STREET 18 0 0 18 29 0 0 0 29 BELVOIR STREET 29 0 0 29 42 1 (2.38%) 0 0 43 (2.38%)

ELECSTAT - Elector Statistics by Area/PD/Street Page: 115 Elector Stttc  reStreet

including other electors Printed: 28 June 2011 o e Elector Street etl  !rt ##e# to elete#( rre't  !rt ##e# to elete# &&lc't ( rre't  l"e# $e%ter  l"e# $e%ter e'#'%

FD - BENTINCK STREET 2 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 2 BLAIR STREET 15 0 0 15 25 0 1 (4.00%) 0 24 (-4.00%) BLENHEIM STREET 24 0 0 24 30 1 (3.33%) 0 0 31 (3.33%) BOWNESS AVENUE 20 0 0 20 44 0 0 0 44 BROAD ING 3 0 0 3 5 0 0 0 5 CATCHES CLOSE 6 0 0 6 13 0 0 0 13 CHURCHILL STREET 47 0 0 47 82 0 0 0 82 CUTGATE ROAD 23 0 0 23 25 0 0 0 25 DELLAR STREET 24 0 0 24 35 0 0 0 35 EDENFIELD ROAD 98 0 0 98 183 0 0 0 183 Page 174 PASSMONDS HOUSE, EDENFIELD 1 0 0 1 9 1 (11.11%) 2 (22.22%) 0 8 (-11.11%) ROAD EDENFIELD STREET 29 0 0 29 55 0 0 0 55 FARADAY RISE 3 0 0 3 7 0 0 0 7 GREAT FLATT 17 0 0 17 37 0 0 0 37 HARTLEY STREET 59 0 0 59 104 3 (2.88%) 3 (2.88%) 0 104 GLEN ROYD, INGS LANE 5 0 0 5 11 0 0 0 11 INGS LANE 5 0 0 5 5 0 0 0 5 ALICE INGHAM COURT, LISBON 35 0 0 35 37 0 4 (10.81%) 0 33 (-10.81%) STREET LISBON STREET 36 0 0 36 62 0 0 0 62 LITTLE FLATT 13 0 0 13 29 0 0 0 29 LOWER GREEN 3 0 0 3 2 0 0 0 2 MADELEY GARDENS 12 0 0 12 31 0 0 0 31 MARLBOROUGH STREET 26 0 0 26 44 0 0 0 44 MEANWOOD FOLD 5 0 0 5 10 0 0 0 10 OFF ROOLEY STREET 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 OTHER ELECTORS 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 PASSMONDS CRESCENT 38 0 0 38 73 1 (1.37%) 0 0 74 (1.37%) PASSMONDS WAY 17 0 0 17 36 0 4 (11.11%) 0 32 (-11.11%) PATIENCE STREET 3 0 0 3 2 0 0 0 2 PHOENIX STREET 8 0 0 8 11 0 0 0 11 PHYLLIS STREET 42 0 0 42 83 0 1 (1.20%) 0 82 (-1.20%) POPLAR AVENUE 2 0 0 2 3 0 0 0 3 PRESTON STREET 19 0 0 19 25 2 (8.00%) 0 0 27 (8.00%)

ELECSTAT - Elector Statistics by Area/PD/Street Page: 116 Elector Stttc  reStreet

including other electors Printed: 28 June 2011 o e Elector Street etl  !rt ##e# to elete#( rre't  !rt ##e# to elete# &&lc't ( rre't  l"e# $e%ter  l"e# $e%ter e'#'%

FD - RAKE TOP 3 0 0 3 5 0 0 0 5 ROEFIELD TERRACE 10 0 0 10 11 0 0 0 11 IVY COTTAGES, ROOLEY MOOR 3 0 0 3 4 0 0 0 4 ROAD ROOLEY MOOR ROAD 130 0 0 130 216 0 1 (0.46%) 0 215 (-0.46%) ROOLEY STREET 36 0 0 36 52 0 0 0 52 ROOLEY TERRACE 4 0 0 4 10 0 0 0 10 RUPERT STREET 24 0 0 24 30 0 0 0 30 RUSHY HILL VIEW 7 0 0 7 11 0 0 0 11 SHEEP GAP 6 0 0 6 11 0 1 (9.09%) 0 10 (-9.09%) SMITHY FOLD 8 0 0 8 12 0 0 0 12 SPOTLAND ROAD 5 0 0 5 16 0 0 0 16 Page 175 TENBY GROVE 5 0 0 5 6 0 0 0 6 THRUSH STREET 23 0 0 23 36 0 0 0 36 TRENGROVE STREET 7 0 0 7 9 0 0 0 9 ULLSWATER AVENUE 23 0 0 23 38 1 (2.63%) 0 0 39 (2.63%) UPPER PASSMONDS GROVE 19 0 0 19 38 0 1 (2.63%) 0 37 (-2.63%) WHALLEY GARDENS 21 0 0 21 46 0 0 0 46 WHALLEY ROAD 29 0 0 29 41 0 1 (2.44%) 0 40 (-2.44%) WINIFRED STREET 26 0 0 26 38 0 0 0 38 WOODSTOCK STREET 33 0 0 33 50 0 0 0 50 WYKEHAM GROVE 12 0 0 12 21 1 (4.76%) 0 0 22 (4.76%) 6otl 7or 8 ! 9 01053 ) ) 01053 01452 00 B)C@@DE A) B0C)0DE ) 014FF B9)CH@DE

FE - BRIDGEFOLD ROAD 25 0 0 25 3 0 0 0 3 CHURCHILL STREET 13 0 0 13 26 0 0 0 26 DENEHURST ROAD 97 0 0 97 169 1 (0.59%) 4 (2.37%) 0 166 (-1.78%) DREW AVENUE 17 0 0 17 0 0 0 0 0 EDENFIELD ROAD 51 0 0 51 84 0 3 (3.57%) 0 81 (-3.57%) FALKLAND AVENUE 39 0 0 39 88 2 (2.27%) 1 (1.14%) 0 89 (1.14%) FURTHER PITS 24 0 0 24 49 0 0 0 49 GENEVA TERRACE 15 0 0 15 34 0 0 0 34 CHEVIOT HOUSE, GREAVE AVENUE 6 0 0 6 6 0 3 (50.00%) 0 3 (-50.00%) GREAVE AVENUE 78 0 0 78 136 5 (3.68%) 1 (0.74%) 0 140 (2.94%)

ELECSTAT - Elector Statistics by Area/PD/Street Page: 117 Elector Stttc  reStreet

including other electors Printed: 28 June 2011 o e Elector Street etl  !rt ##e# to elete#( rre't  !rt ##e# to elete# &&lc't ( rre't  l"e# $e%ter  l"e# $e%ter e'#'%

FE - PETRUS COMMUNITY GREAVE 1 0 0 1 15 9 (60.00%) 17 (113.33%) 0 7 (-53.33%) HOUSE, GREAVE AVENUE HUDSONS WALK 1 0 0 1 4 0 0 0 4 JUTLAND AVENUE 41 0 0 41 72 1 (1.39%) 1 (1.39%) 0 72 LONGFIELD ROAD 4 0 0 4 14 0 0 0 14 MARNE CRESCENT 51 0 0 51 83 2 (2.41%) 0 0 85 (2.41%) MELLOR STREET 19 0 0 19 2 0 0 0 2 MONS AVENUE 30 0 0 30 67 1 (1.49%) 1 (1.49%) 0 67 OAKFIELD TERRACE 19 0 0 19 41 1 (2.44%) 0 0 42 (2.44%) OTHER ELECTORS 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0

Page 176 PARK WAY 52 0 0 52 97 0 0 0 97 PATTERN AVENUE 29 0 0 29 0 0 0 0 0 PEARL STREET 2 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 2 PITS FARM AVENUE 38 0 0 38 72 0 0 0 72 SANDY LANE 64 0 0 64 141 0 1 (0.71%) 0 140 (-0.71%) ST CLEMENTS COURT 12 0 0 12 14 0 1 (7.14%) 0 13 (-7.14%) VERDUN CRESCENT 30 0 0 30 60 0 0 0 60 VIKING STREET 45 0 0 45 79 0 0 0 79 WILLBUTTS LANE 42 0 0 42 76 0 0 0 76 6otl 7or 8 !E 9 5H2 ) ) 5H2 01H3H AA B0C@3DE 33 BAC3)DE ) 01HA3 B9)CFFDE

FF - ARTHUR STREET 42 0 0 42 83 1 (1.20%) 0 0 84 (1.20%) ASHWORTH STREET 22 0 0 22 47 2 (4.26%) 1 (2.13%) 0 48 (2.13%) CLEMENT ROYDS STREET 24 0 0 24 53 0 0 0 53 COLLEGE ROAD 5 0 0 5 3 0 0 0 3 CRIMBLE STREET 3 0 0 3 4 0 0 0 4 EDEN STREET 7 0 0 7 8 0 0 0 8 COLLEGE COURT, HOLMES STREET 10 0 0 10 22 0 0 0 22 HOLMES STREET 46 0 0 46 59 0 2 (3.39%) 0 57 (-3.39%) KATHLEEN STREET 11 0 0 11 15 0 0 0 15 LITTLEDALE STREET 7 0 0 7 13 0 0 0 13 LOMBARD STREET 2 0 0 2 3 0 0 0 3 MITCHELL STREET 49 0 0 49 140 1 (0.71%) 0 0 141 (0.71%) OTHER ELECTORS 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0

ELECSTAT - Elector Statistics by Area/PD/Street Page: 118 Elector Stttc  reStreet

including other electors Printed: 28 June 2011 o e Elector Street etl  !rt ##e# to elete#( rre't  !rt ##e# to elete# &&lc't ( rre't  l"e# $e%ter  l"e# $e%ter e'#'%

FF - PRIMROSE STREET 22 0 0 22 36 0 1 (2.78%) 0 35 (-2.78%) PRIMROSE VILLAS 3 0 0 3 4 0 0 0 4 SPOTLAND ROAD 27 0 0 27 57 4 (7.02%) 0 0 61 (7.02%) STONEFLAT COURT 2 0 0 2 4 0 0 0 4 6otl 7or 8 !! 9 A53 ) ) A53 @@0 5 B0CH@DE H B)CF3DE ) @@@ B)CF3DE

FG - ASHWORTH STREET 23 0 0 23 34 1 (2.94%) 0 0 35 (2.94%) BESWICKE STREET 10 0 0 10 16 0 0 0 16 BROWNHILL VIEW 21 0 0 21 20 0 0 0 20 CHASELEY ROAD 32 0 0 32 68 0 0 0 68 CINNAMON CLOSE 7 0 0 7 9 0 0 0 9

Page 177 CINNAMON STREET 19 0 0 19 43 0 0 0 43 CLARKES LANE 12 0 0 12 28 0 0 0 28 CLEMENT ROYDS STREET 60 0 0 60 129 0 3 (2.33%) 0 126 (-2.33%) EDMUND STREET 95 0 0 95 302 1 (0.33%) 1 (0.33%) 0 302 EMMA STREET 38 0 0 38 69 1 (1.45%) 2 (2.90%) 0 68 (-1.45%) FALINGE MEWS 36 0 0 36 36 0 1 (2.78%) 0 35 (-2.78%) FALINGE ROAD 27 0 0 27 74 0 0 0 74 PARKLANDS HOUSE, FALINGE ROAD 1 0 0 1 53 0 1 (1.89%) 0 52 (-1.89%) GREENHILL AVENUE 18 0 0 18 36 1 (2.78%) 0 0 37 (2.78%) HASLAM STREET 37 0 0 37 55 0 1 (1.82%) 0 54 (-1.82%) HOLLAND STREET 2 0 0 2 4 0 0 0 4 JANE STREET 2 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 2 JULIA STREET 7 0 0 7 12 0 0 0 12 LITTLEDALE STREET 14 0 0 14 36 0 0 0 36 LOWER SHERIFF STREET 12 0 0 12 23 0 0 0 23 EAST VIEW, MITCHELL STREET 22 0 0 22 35 2 (5.71%) 0 0 37 (5.71%) MOLYNEUX STREET 76 0 0 76 116 1 (0.86%) 2 (1.72%) 0 115 (-0.86%) MOUNT STREET 37 0 0 37 65 0 0 0 65 OTHER ELECTORS 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 2 PEEL STREET 53 0 0 53 90 0 2 (2.22%) 0 88 (-2.22%) PILLING STREET 45 0 0 45 70 0 1 (1.43%) 0 69 (-1.43%) SHERIFF STREET 11 0 0 11 40 1 (2.50%) 0 0 41 (2.50%) SPOTLAND ROAD 66 0 0 66 123 0 3 (2.44%) 0 120 (-2.44%)

ELECSTAT - Elector Statistics by Area/PD/Street Page: 119 Elector Stttc  reStreet

including other electors Printed: 28 June 2011 o e Elector Street etl  !rt ##e# to elete#( rre't  !rt ##e# to elete# &&lc't ( rre't  l"e# $e%ter  l"e# $e%ter e'#'%

FG - ROCHDALE COLLEGE, ST MARYS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 GATE THORNTREE PLACE 6 0 0 6 7 0 0 0 7 WHITELEY'S PLACE 3 0 0 3 4 0 0 0 4 WILTON TERRACE 6 0 0 6 12 0 0 0 12 6otl 7or 8 !U 9 F44 ) ) F44 01203 5 B)C@)DE 0F B0C)@DE ) 012)H B9)C@2DE SP6IQ Q !ISQUE H1200 ) ) H1200 5102A @5 B)CF0DE 0)0 B0CAHDE A 51004 B9)C@3DE Page 178

ELECSTAT - Elector Statistics by Area/PD/Street Page: 120 Elector Stttc  reStreet

including other electors Printed: 28 June 2011 o e Elector Street etl  !rt ##e# to elete#( rre't  !rt ##e# to elete# &&lc't ( rre't  l"e# $e%ter  l"e# $e%ter e'#'%

TA - ABERLEY FOLD 35 0 0 35 71 0 0 0 71 ALFRED STREET 18 0 0 18 24 0 0 0 24 BAMFORD STREET 2 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 2 CALF HEY 3 0 18(600.00%) -15 6 0 2 (33.33%) 0 4 (-33.33%) CLEGG STREET 8 0 0 8 11 0 0 0 11 COTE LANE 5 0 0 5 9 0 0 0 9 EDMUNDS FOLD 33 0 0 33 68 0 4 (5.88%) 0 64 (-5.88%) FELLSIDE GARDENS 21 0 0 21 43 1 (2.33%) 0 0 44 (2.33%) FREDERICK STREET 24 0 0 24 45 0 3 (6.67%) 0 42 (-6.67%) GASKELL CLOSE 6 0 0 6 11 0 0 0 11 HIGHER SHORE ROAD 6 0 0 6 9 0 0 0 9 HIGHER SHORE 2 0 0 2 7 0 0 0 7 Page 179 HODDER AVENUE 28 0 0 28 55 0 0 0 55 KINDERS FOLD 16 0 0 16 30 0 0 0 30 LAKE VIEW 3 0 0 3 6 0 0 0 6 MIDDLEWOOD LANE,SHORE 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 2 OTHER ELECTORS 1 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 3 PETTS CRESCENT 41 0 0 41 83 0 0 0 83 RIBBLE AVENUE 29 0 0 29 53 0 1 (1.89%) 0 52 (-1.89%) SALTS DRIVE 14 0 0 14 30 0 0 0 30 SHORE FOLD 3 0 0 3 4 0 0 0 4 SHORE LEA 5 0 0 5 9 0 0 0 9 SHORE MOUNT 77 0 0 77 144 0 0 0 144 SHORE ROAD 46 0 0 46 85 0 0 0 85 SHORE 10 0 0 10 23 0 0 0 23 ST BARNABAS DRIVE 12 0 0 12 22 0 0 0 22 TURF TERRACE 22 0 0 22 32 1 (3.13%) 0 0 33 (3.13%) WARDLE STREET 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 2 CALDER GARDENS, WHITELEES 3 0 0 3 7 0 0 0 7 ROAD WHITELEES ROAD 51 0 0 51 90 1 (1.11%) 0 0 91 (1.11%) 6otl 7or 8 6 9 @A2 ) 05 B3CHADE @)5 452 3 B)C3)DE 0) B0C)0DE ) 4F4 B9)CF0DE

TB - ALBION STREET 2 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 2

ELECSTAT - Elector Statistics by Area/PD/Street Page: 121 Elector Stttc  reStreet

including other electors Printed: 28 June 2011 o e Elector Street etl  !rt ##e# to elete#( rre't  !rt ##e# to elete# &&lc't ( rre't  l"e# $e%ter  l"e# $e%ter e'#'%

TB - BAMFORD STREET 12 0 0 12 11 0 0 0 11 BROOKWAY 37 0 0 37 69 0 2 (2.90%) 0 67 (-2.90%) BUTTERWORTH STREET 3 0 0 3 4 0 0 0 4 CUTLAND WAY 27 0 0 27 63 5 (7.94%) 1 (1.59%) 0 67 (6.35%) DEARNLEY CLOSE 5 0 0 5 11 0 0 0 11 ELIZABETH STREET 5 0 0 5 10 0 0 0 10 ESTHER STREET 2 0 0 2 5 0 0 0 5 FEATHERSTALL BROOK VIEW 11 0 0 11 20 0 0 0 20 FEATHERSTALL ROAD 81 0 0 81 135 0 2 (1.48%) 0 133 (-1.48%) FOUR STALLS END 12 0 0 12 25 0 3 (12.00%) 0 22 (-12.00%) Page 180 FRANKLYN TERRACE 3 0 18(600.00%) -15 4 0 2 (50.00%) 0 2 (-50.00%) HALLIDAY COURT 21 0 0 21 22 0 0 0 22 HARTLEY TERRACE 3 0 0 3 5 0 0 0 5 HIGH STREET 25 0 0 25 38 0 0 0 38 HOLLINGWORTH COURT 15 0 0 15 17 1 (5.88%) 0 0 18 (5.88%) HOLTS PASSAGE 2 0 0 2 3 0 0 0 3 INDUSTRY STREET 2 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 2 KERSHAWS PASSAGE 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 LIGHTBURN AVENUE 41 0 0 41 80 0 0 0 80 MILL FOLD GARDENS 40 0 0 40 69 2 (2.90%) 2 (2.90%) 0 69 MINERVA TERRACE 3 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 3 ASHLEY DEARNLEY COURT, NEW 10 0 0 10 13 0 0 0 13 ROAD NEW ROAD 38 0 0 38 64 0 3 (4.69%) 0 61 (-4.69%) NEW STREET 20 0 0 20 34 0 0 0 34 OAKLEY STREET 8 0 0 8 16 0 0 0 16 OTHER ELECTORS 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 PADDOCK HEAD,DEARNLEY 3 0 0 3 7 0 0 0 7 RIVERSTONE BRIDGE 59 0 0 59 132 0 0 0 132 SAW MILL WAY 25 0 0 25 50 0 0 0 50 CALLIARDS MILL HOUSE, SMITHY 1 0 0 1 4 0 0 0 4 BRIDGE ROAD SMITHY BRIDGE ROAD 12 0 0 12 19 0 0 0 19 SPEN FOLD 14 0 0 14 28 1 (3.57%) 0 0 29 (3.57%) SPENWOOD ROAD 24 0 0 24 51 0 0 0 51

ELECSTAT - Elector Statistics by Area/PD/Street Page: 122 Elector Stttc  reStreet

including other electors Printed: 28 June 2011 o e Elector Street etl  !rt ##e# to elete#( rre't  !rt ##e# to elete# &&lc't ( rre't  l"e# $e%ter  l"e# $e%ter e'#'%

TB - STOPFORD AVENUE 34 0 0 34 62 0 0 0 62 STUBLEY GARDENS 8 0 0 8 16 0 0 0 16 STUBLEY LANE 2 0 0 2 4 0 0 0 4 STUBLEY MILL ROAD 37 0 0 37 74 0 0 0 74 THE ELMS 10 0 0 10 23 0 1 (4.35%) 0 22 (-4.35%) THOMAS STREET 3 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 3 VULCAN TERRACE 2 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 2 WHITEGATE 60 0 0 60 116 2 (1.72%) 1 (0.86%) 0 117 (0.86%) WILDS PASSAGE 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 WILLIAM STREET 16 0 0 16 26 0 0 0 26 6otl 7or 8 6G 9 FH0 ) 05 BACH3DE FA3 013H@ 00 B)C5ADE 0F B0CA2DE ) 01334 B9)CH@DE

Page 181 TC - ALDERBANK 35 0 0 35 67 0 1 (1.49%) 0 66 (-1.49%) ALPINE DRIVE 73 0 0 73 153 0 1 (0.65%) 0 152 (-0.65%) ASHBOURNE CLOSE 14 0 0 14 31 1 (3.23%) 0 0 32 (3.23%) BANK BARN LANE 7 0 0 7 11 0 0 0 11 BANK LANE 8 0 0 8 14 0 0 0 14 BENT HEAD FARM 2 0 0 2 4 0 0 0 4 BIRCH HILL LANE 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 2 BIRCH ROAD 36 0 0 36 60 0 0 0 60 BROOK STREET 2 0 0 2 3 0 0 0 3 BROOKLANDS 5 0 0 5 6 0 0 0 6 CHAPEL STREET 10 0 0 10 16 0 1 (6.25%) 0 15 (-6.25%) CHURCH TERRACE 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 CLOUGH STREET 4 0 0 4 7 0 0 0 7 CORNBROOK CLOSE 26 0 0 26 53 1 (1.89%) 0 0 54 (1.89%) CROSSFIELD CLOSE 34 0 0 34 65 1 (1.54%) 0 0 66 (1.54%) CROSSFIELD ROAD 15 0 0 15 29 0 0 0 29 DOVEDALE DRIVE 39 0 0 39 91 0 0 0 91 EAST STREET 7 0 0 7 16 0 2 (12.50%) 0 14 (-12.50%) ELM GROVE 50 0 0 50 80 0 1 (1.25%) 0 79 (-1.25%) FERN STREET 8 0 0 8 13 0 0 0 13 HARTLEY STREET 1 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 3 HAYMAKER RISE 20 0 0 20 33 0 0 0 33

ELECSTAT - Elector Statistics by Area/PD/Street Page: 123 Elector Stttc  reStreet

including other electors Printed: 28 June 2011 o e Elector Street etl  !rt ##e# to elete#( rre't  !rt ##e# to elete# &&lc't ( rre't  l"e# $e%ter  l"e# $e%ter e'#'%

TC - HEATH ROAD 16 0 0 16 43 0 0 0 43 HENRY STREET 7 0 0 7 11 0 0 0 11 HIBSON CLOSE 20 0 0 20 49 0 1 (2.04%) 0 48 (-2.04%) HOLLY STREET 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 HOWARTH KNOWL 6 0 0 6 13 0 0 0 13 JAMES STREET 6 0 0 6 9 0 0 0 9 KINGS GROVE 35 0 0 35 62 0 0 0 62 KNOWL SYKE STREET 28 0 0 28 60 0 0 0 60 LAWFLAT 5 0 0 5 9 0 0 0 9 LEAWAY 9 0 0 9 20 0 1 (5.00%) 0 19 (-5.00%) Page 182 SHAW LODGE, LODGE STREET 24 0 18(75.00%) 6 29 2 (6.90%) 4 (13.79%) 0 27 (-6.90%) LOWER HOUSE LANE 4 0 0 4 10 0 0 0 10 LOWERHOUSE LANE 2 0 0 2 4 0 0 0 4 NEWHOUSE CLOSE 34 0 0 34 78 0 1 (1.28%) 0 77 (-1.28%) NEWHOUSE STREET 2 0 0 2 4 0 0 0 4 OLD SCHOOL PLACE 4 0 0 4 8 0 0 0 8 OTHER ELECTORS 1 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 3 PENNINE DRIVE 15 0 0 15 27 0 0 0 27 PRINCESS AVENUE 6 0 0 6 13 0 0 0 13 QUEENS AVENUE 18 0 0 18 37 0 0 0 37 RAMSDEN ROAD 157 0 9(5.73%) 148 260 1 (0.38%) 4 (1.54%) 0 257 (-1.15%) ST JAMES COTTAGES, RAMSDEN 4 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 ROAD REGAL FOLD 11 0 0 11 24 0 2 (8.33%) 0 22 (-8.33%) SHAFTESBURY DRIVE 75 0 0 75 147 2 (1.36%) 2 (1.36%) 0 147 SPINNERS GARDENS 18 0 0 18 29 2 (6.90%) 2 (6.90%) 0 29 ST JAMES' WAY 5 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 VINEYARD CLOSE 13 0 0 13 23 0 0 0 23 WARDLE FOLD 11 0 0 11 20 0 0 0 20 WARDLE ROAD 70 0 0 70 132 0 2 (1.52%) 0 130 (-1.52%) WASP MILL DRIVE 58 0 18(31.03%) 40 105 0 4 (3.81%) 0 101 (-3.81%) WATERHOUSE CLOSE 39 0 0 39 73 0 1 (1.37%) 0 72 (-1.37%) WESTMORLAND DRIVE 17 0 0 17 33 0 0 0 33 WILLIE EDWARDS FOLD 20 0 0 20 25 0 0 0 25 WOODEND LANE 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 2

ELECSTAT - Elector Statistics by Area/PD/Street Page: 124 Elector Stttc  reStreet

including other electors Printed: 28 June 2011 o e Elector Street etl  !rt ##e# to elete#( rre't  !rt ##e# to elete# &&lc't ( rre't  l"e# $e%ter  l"e# $e%ter e'#'% 6otl 7or 8 6( 9 010H) ) H@ B3C4@DE 01)4@ A10A0 0) B)CHFDE 3) B0CH0DE ) A10)0 B9)C4HDE

TD - BEADLE AVENUE 17 0 0 17 38 0 0 0 38 BELVOIR MEADOWS 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 BIRCH AVENUE 44 0 9(20.45%) 35 75 0 3 (4.00%) 0 72 (-4.00%) BIRCH HILL CRESCENT 31 0 0 31 50 4 (8.00%) 1 (2.00%) 0 53 (6.00%) LONG STAY PATIENTS, BIRCH HILL 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 HOSPITAL BIRCH MOUNT 8 0 0 8 18 0 0 0 18 BIRCH ROAD 53 0 0 53 106 0 2 (1.89%) 0 104 (-1.89%) BIRCH VIEW 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 BROOKLYN AVENUE 11 0 0 11 21 0 0 0 21 BROWSIDE CLOSE 5 0 0 5 10 0 0 0 10 Page 183 CALLIARDS ROAD 25 0 0 25 57 0 0 0 57 CARRINGTON CLOSE 11 0 0 11 29 0 0 0 29 CHURCH STREET, SMALLBRIDGE 7 0 0 7 10 0 0 0 10 DOB WHEEL COTTAGES, DYEHOUSE 2 0 0 2 3 0 0 0 3 LANE DYEHOUSE LANE 8 0 0 8 14 0 0 0 14 EDWARD STREET 8 0 0 8 18 0 0 0 18 FLEMING CLOSE 17 0 0 17 35 0 1 (2.86%) 0 34 (-2.86%) FRANCES STREET 16 0 0 16 21 0 0 0 21 GEORGE STREET 54 0 0 54 99 0 0 0 99 GLOUCESTER AVENUE 26 0 0 26 38 0 1 (2.63%) 0 37 (-2.63%) GREENCROFT WAY 9 0 0 9 21 0 0 0 21 GREENFIELD HOUSE, GREENFIELD 3 0 0 3 6 0 0 0 6 LANE GREENFIELD LANE 10 0 0 10 20 0 0 0 20 GREENFIELD VIEW 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 2 GREENGROVE BANK 14 0 0 14 28 0 0 0 28 GUARDIAN CLOSE 21 0 0 21 54 0 0 0 54 HALIFAX ROAD 110 0 0 110 176 0 0 0 176 BELVOIR NURSING HOME, HALIFAX 1 0 0 1 12 1 (8.33%) 1 (8.33%) 0 12 ROAD HOLLAND STREET 14 0 0 14 25 0 1 (4.00%) 0 24 (-4.00%) JOHN STREET 12 0 0 12 16 0 0 0 16

ELECSTAT - Elector Statistics by Area/PD/Street Page: 125 Elector Stttc  reStreet

including other electors Printed: 28 June 2011 o e Elector Street etl  !rt ##e# to elete#( rre't  !rt ##e# to elete# &&lc't ( rre't  l"e# $e%ter  l"e# $e%ter e'#'%

TD - LAYCOCK STREET 2 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 2 MANOR MILL CLOSE 12 0 0 12 26 0 0 0 26 MARY STREET 15 0 0 15 23 0 0 0 23 MOUNT AVENUE 13 0 0 13 23 0 0 0 23 OLD BROW LANE 12 0 0 12 30 0 0 0 30 OLD ROAD 24 0 0 24 54 0 2 (3.70%) 0 52 (-3.70%) OTHER ELECTORS 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 SMITHY BRIDGE ROAD 4 0 0 4 8 0 0 0 8 SOUTH VIEW ROAD 17 0 0 17 37 0 0 0 37 SOUTH VIEW TERRACE 19 0 0 19 35 0 1 (2.86%) 0 34 (-2.86%) Page 184 SPRINGFIELD LANE 8 0 0 8 12 0 0 0 12 STAFFORD COURT 4 0 0 4 5 0 0 0 5 STOTT STREET, HURSTEAD 10 0 0 10 16 0 0 0 16 STOTT STREET 9 0 0 9 21 0 0 0 21 TARNSIDE CLOSE 40 0 0 40 80 0 0 0 80 TURNFIELD CLOSE 7 0 0 7 17 0 0 0 17 UNION ROAD 10 0 0 10 20 0 0 0 20 VICARAGE DRIVE 1 0 0 1 4 0 0 0 4 WHEELWRIGHT DRIVE 18 0 0 18 47 0 1 (2.13%) 0 46 (-2.13%) WILLIAM STREET 8 0 0 8 14 0 0 0 14 WUERDLE CLOSE 9 0 0 9 20 0 0 0 20 WUERDLE FARM WAY 9 0 0 9 22 0 0 0 22 WUERDLE PLACE 12 0 0 12 29 0 0 0 29 WUERDLE STREET 4 0 0 4 5 0 0 0 5 6otl 7or 8 6 9 5)4 ) 4 B0C00DE 5)) 01@@3 @ B)C3ADE 0H B)C4)DE ) 01@HH B9)C@5DE

TE - ALMOND CLOSE 11 0 0 11 23 0 0 0 23 ARM ROAD 4 0 0 4 3 0 0 0 3 ASH GROVE 16 0 0 16 34 0 0 0 34 ASHWOOD DRIVE 9 0 0 9 19 0 0 0 19 BACK JAMES STREET 3 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 3 BEAUMONT CLOSE 14 0 0 14 28 0 0 0 28 BENTS FARM CLOSE 5 0 0 5 7 0 0 0 7 BERKLEY WALK 11 0 0 11 22 0 0 0 22

ELECSTAT - Elector Statistics by Area/PD/Street Page: 126 Elector Stttc  reStreet

including other electors Printed: 28 June 2011 o e Elector Street etl  !rt ##e# to elete#( rre't  !rt ##e# to elete# &&lc't ( rre't  l"e# $e%ter  l"e# $e%ter e'#'%

TE - BIRCH HILL WALK 14 0 0 14 23 0 0 0 23 BRAMBLE CLOSE 7 0 0 7 14 0 0 0 14 BROOKFIELD DRIVE 35 0 0 35 82 0 0 0 82 CECIL STREET 17 0 0 17 32 0 0 0 32 CELANDINE CLOSE 6 0 0 6 13 0 1 (7.69%) 0 12 (-7.69%) CHESTNUT WAY 3 0 0 3 7 0 0 0 7 CLEGGS YARD 3 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 3 COPSE WALK 4 0 0 4 11 0 0 0 11 CROWTHER COURT DEARNLEY 15 0 0 15 17 0 0 0 17 DUKE STREET 12 0 0 12 21 0 0 0 21 ELMORE WOOD 8 0 0 8 18 0 0 0 18 FARM WALK 14 0 0 14 27 0 1 (3.70%) 0 26 (-3.70%) Page 185 FEATHERSTALL ROAD 64 0 0 64 107 0 0 0 107 FEATHERSTALL SQUARE 3 0 0 3 9 0 2 (22.22%) 0 7 (-22.22%) FINANCE STREET 9 0 0 9 12 0 1 (8.33%) 0 11 (-8.33%) HANOVER STREET 2 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 2 HAWTHORN WALK 14 0 0 14 28 0 2 (7.14%) 0 26 (-7.14%) HENDERSON STREET 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 2 HIGHER STARRING LANE 3 0 0 3 4 0 0 0 4 17, JAMES STREET 17 0 0 17 12 0 0 0 12 19, JAMES STREET 3 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 JAMES STREET 42 0 0 42 65 0 0 0 65 LABURNUM WAY 58 0 0 58 95 0 0 0 95 LAW TERRACE 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 LIME GROVE 20 0 0 20 42 0 0 0 42 MEADOW WALK 12 0 0 12 28 0 1 (3.57%) 0 27 (-3.57%) NEW ROAD 56 0 0 56 70 0 0 0 70 OAK HILL 8 0 0 8 16 0 0 0 16 OLIVER CLOSE 15 0 0 15 24 0 0 0 24 OTHER ELECTORS 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 2 ROSEMARY DRIVE 4 0 0 4 9 0 0 0 9 SCHOOL STREET 4 0 0 4 6 0 0 0 6 SORREL DRIVE 15 0 0 15 33 0 0 0 33 SPRING THYME FOLD 46 0 0 46 94 0 0 0 94

ELECSTAT - Elector Statistics by Area/PD/Street Page: 127 Elector Stttc  reStreet

including other electors Printed: 28 June 2011 o e Elector Street etl  !rt ##e# to elete#( rre't  !rt ##e# to elete# &&lc't ( rre't  l"e# $e%ter  l"e# $e%ter e'#'%

TE - ST ANDREW'S CLOSE 24 0 0 24 52 0 0 0 52 STARRING GROVE 2 0 0 2 6 0 0 0 6 STARRING LANE 8 0 0 8 13 0 0 0 13 STARRING ROAD 7 0 0 7 14 0 0 0 14 STARRING WAY 103 0 0 103 184 1 (0.54%) 1 (0.54%) 0 184 SYCAMORE CLOSE 20 0 0 20 34 0 0 0 34 THOMASON SQUARE 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 TREFOIL WAY 11 0 0 11 28 0 2 (7.14%) 0 26 (-7.14%) UNION ROAD 11 0 0 11 16 0 0 0 16 WHITELEES ROAD 27 0 0 27 42 0 0 0 42 Page 186 WHITTLE STREET 6 0 0 6 8 0 0 0 8 WOODS PASSAGE 3 0 0 3 2 0 0 0 2 6otl 7or 8 6E 9 53A ) ) 53A 01H25 0 B)C)FDE 00 B)CF@DE ) 01H@5 B9)C25DE W$IE Q WES6 IS66IEGP$PXU H1)H5 ) 4)BACAADE 314@5 F1HF3 3) B)CH)DE 5A B0C0)DE ) F1HA0 B9)CF)DE

ELECSTAT - Elector Statistics by Area/PD/Street Page: 128 Elector Stttc  reStreet

including other electors Printed: 28 June 2011 o e Elector Street etl  !rt ##e# to elete#( rre't  !rt ##e# to elete# &&lc't ( rre't  l"e# $e%ter  l"e# $e%ter e'#'%

KA - BURY NEW ROAD 27 0 0 27 51 2 (3.92%) 1 (1.96%) 0 52 (1.96%) BURY OLD ROAD 1 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 3 GIGG 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 WATER FARM, GIGG 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 2 GORE CLOSE 7 0 0 7 18 0 0 0 18 HEAP BRIDGE 17 0 0 17 27 1 (3.70%) 0 0 28 (3.70%) HEAP BROW 17 0 0 17 39 0 0 0 39 LORD STREET 29 0 0 29 52 0 0 0 52 MOSS HALL ROAD 9 0 0 9 12 0 0 0 12 OTHER ELECTORS 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 PRETTYWOOD 33 0 0 33 57 0 0 0 57 ROCH VIEW 9 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 Page 187 WATERFOLD BUSINESS PARK 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 WATERFOLD LANE 46 0 0 46 71 0 1 (1.41%) 0 70 (-1.41%) 6otl 7or 8 R 9 044 ) ) 044 33H 3 B)C4)DE A B)C2)DE ) 33@ B)C3)DE

KB - ASHFORD STREET 2 0 0 2 3 0 0 0 3 AVON ROAD 46 0 0 46 91 0 0 0 91 BENMORE CLOSE 15 0 0 15 32 0 0 0 32 BOTANY CLOSE 10 0 0 10 18 0 0 0 18 BURY NEW ROAD 122 0 0 122 208 0 3 (1.44%) 0 205 (-1.44%) SEDGLEY VILLAS, BURY NEW ROAD 6 0 0 6 4 0 0 0 4 HEADY HILL COURT, BURY OLD 16 0 0 16 20 0 0 0 20 ROAD BURY OLD ROAD 135 0 0 135 258 0 3 (1.16%) 0 255 (-1.16%) BURY STREET 9 0 0 9 16 0 0 0 16 CHATBURN GARDENS 12 0 0 12 23 0 0 0 23 CHELMER GROVE 33 0 0 33 67 0 0 0 67 CHERWELL AVENUE 72 0 0 72 132 0 4 (3.03%) 0 128 (-3.03%) CONWAY CLOSE 35 0 0 35 70 3 (4.29%) 0 0 73 (4.29%) CUMBERLAND AVENUE 20 0 0 20 51 0 0 0 51 DEVONSHIRE CLOSE 17 0 0 17 33 0 0 0 33 DILWORTH CLOSE 10 0 0 10 10 0 0 0 10 DORSET CLOSE 20 0 0 20 39 0 0 0 39

ELECSTAT - Elector Statistics by Area/PD/Street Page: 129 Elector Stttc  reStreet

including other electors Printed: 28 June 2011 o e Elector Street etl  !rt ##e# to elete#( rre't  !rt ##e# to elete# &&lc't ( rre't  l"e# $e%ter  l"e# $e%ter e'#'%

KB - DOWNHAM ROAD 36 0 0 36 41 0 2 (4.88%) 0 39 (-4.88%) DURHAM WALK 26 0 0 26 39 0 0 0 39 EDEN CLOSE 21 0 0 21 38 0 0 0 38 EDGWORTH CLOSE 40 0 0 40 68 0 0 0 68 FRANK FOLD 41 0 0 41 88 0 0 0 88 GASKILL STREET 45 0 0 45 63 0 1 (1.59%) 0 62 (-1.59%) HARTFORD AVENUE 35 0 0 35 68 0 1 (1.47%) 0 67 (-1.47%) HARTFORD CLOSE 18 0 0 18 45 0 0 0 45 HEADY HILL ROAD 15 0 0 15 25 0 0 0 25 HEYS LANE 19 0 0 19 34 0 1 (2.94%) 0 33 (-2.94%) Page 188 HIGHER LOMAX LANE 159 0 0 159 315 0 3 (0.95%) 0 312 (-0.95%) HIGHFIELD AVENUE 12 0 0 12 27 0 0 0 27 HILLCREST AVENUE 24 0 0 24 45 0 0 0 45 HILLCREST CRESCENT 6 0 0 6 8 0 0 0 8 JEFFREY WALK 18 0 0 18 20 0 1 (5.00%) 0 19 (-5.00%) KENT WALK 36 0 0 36 68 2 (2.94%) 0 0 70 (2.94%) KNOWL HILL VIEW 8 0 0 8 14 0 0 0 14 LINCOLN WALK 46 0 0 46 84 1 (1.19%) 3 (3.57%) 0 82 (-2.38%) LIVSEY LANE 2 0 0 2 4 0 0 0 4 LONGRIDGE DRIVE 43 0 0 43 78 0 2 (2.56%) 0 76 (-2.56%) LOSTOCK CLOSE 12 0 0 12 24 0 0 0 24 LOWER LOMAX FARM 1 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 3 LUNE GROVE 13 0 0 13 28 0 0 0 28 LYN GROVE 12 0 0 12 21 0 0 0 21 HIGHER LOMAX LANE, MILLFIELD 91 0 0 91 66 0 3 (4.55%) 0 63 (-4.55%) MITTON CLOSE 14 0 0 14 24 0 0 0 24 MOOR STREET 16 0 0 16 25 0 0 0 25 NORFOLK AVENUE 27 0 0 27 48 1 (2.08%) 1 (2.08%) 0 48 NORFOLK GARDENS 4 0 0 4 2 0 0 0 2 OGDEN CLOSE 8 0 0 8 19 0 0 0 19 OTHER ELECTORS 1 0 0 1 2 1 (50.00%) 0 0 3 (50.00%) PARTINGTON STREET 22 0 0 22 41 0 1 (2.44%) 0 40 (-2.44%) REGENT STREET 6 0 0 6 13 0 0 0 13 RIBBLE GROVE 13 0 0 13 22 0 0 0 22

ELECSTAT - Elector Statistics by Area/PD/Street Page: 130 Elector Stttc  reStreet

including other electors Printed: 28 June 2011 o e Elector Street etl  !rt ##e# to elete#( rre't  !rt ##e# to elete# &&lc't ( rre't  l"e# $e%ter  l"e# $e%ter e'#'%

KB - ROCH AVENUE 8 0 0 8 18 0 0 0 18 SABDEN CLOSE 16 0 0 16 32 0 0 0 32 SEVERN ROAD 72 0 0 72 149 0 0 0 149 SHANNON CLOSE 9 0 0 9 26 0 0 0 26 SHERBOURNE DRIVE 48 0 0 48 109 0 3 (2.75%) 0 106 (-2.75%) SPRINGFIELD STREET 12 0 0 12 23 0 0 0 23 SUMMIT STREET 32 0 0 32 57 0 0 0 57 TAMAR WAY 20 0 0 20 47 0 1 (2.13%) 0 46 (-2.13%) THE MEDWAY 44 0 0 44 93 0 2 (2.15%) 0 91 (-2.15%) BRACKEN HALL COURT, TODD 47 0 0 47 43 0 1 (2.33%) 0 42 (-2.33%) STREET TOP OF HEAP 5 0 0 5 6 0 0 0 6 Page 189 TRENT AVENUE 12 0 0 12 24 0 0 0 24 TURTON CLOSE 10 0 0 10 18 0 0 0 18 WELLAND AVENUE 38 0 0 38 88 0 1 (1.14%) 0 87 (-1.14%) WHALLEY ROAD 94 0 0 94 119 0 2 (1.68%) 0 117 (-1.68%) WHAM BAR DRIVE 43 0 0 43 85 0 0 0 85 WILSON AVENUE 58 0 0 58 121 0 0 0 121 WITHAM CLOSE 11 0 0 11 15 0 0 0 15 6otl 7or 8 RG 9 A1)H4 ) ) A1)H4 312@5 5 B)CAADE 34 B0C)FDE ) 312AF B9)C5@DE

KC - ANGUS AVENUE 6 0 0 6 9 0 1 (11.11%) 0 8 (-11.11%) ARGYLE STREET 98 2(2.04%) 0 100 156 5 (3.21%) 1 (0.64%) 0 160 (2.56%) ARRAN WALK 18 0 0 18 31 0 0 0 31 ATHOLL DRIVE 146 0 0 146 235 1 (0.43%) 0 0 236 (0.43%) AYR GROVE 17 0 0 17 26 0 0 0 26 BALLATER CLOSE 23 0 0 23 37 0 0 0 37 BALMORAL DRIVE 51 0 0 51 78 0 1 (1.28%) 0 77 (-1.28%) BANFF GROVE 12 0 0 12 25 0 0 0 25 BERWICK CLOSE 32 0 0 32 62 0 1 (1.61%) 0 61 (-1.61%) BIRNAM GROVE 24 0 0 24 28 0 0 0 28 BRAEMAR GROVE 17 0 0 17 25 0 1 (4.00%) 0 24 (-4.00%) BRECHIN WAY 17 0 0 17 28 0 0 0 28 CRAWFORD SQUARE 8 0 0 8 12 0 0 0 12

ELECSTAT - Elector Statistics by Area/PD/Street Page: 131 Elector Stttc  reStreet

including other electors Printed: 28 June 2011 o e Elector Street etl  !rt ##e# to elete#( rre't  !rt ##e# to elete# &&lc't ( rre't  l"e# $e%ter  l"e# $e%ter e'#'%

KC - CRINAN SQUARE 9 0 0 9 11 0 0 0 11 CROMARTY SQUARE 8 0 0 8 15 2 (13.33%) 0 0 17 (13.33%) DALKEITH SQUARE 8 0 0 8 11 0 0 0 11 DOUGLAS SQUARE 6 0 0 6 9 0 0 0 9 DUMBARTON DRIVE 44 0 0 44 69 0 1 (1.45%) 0 68 (-1.45%) DUMFRIES WALK 16 0 0 16 30 0 0 0 30 DUNBAR GROVE 33 0 0 33 57 0 1 (1.75%) 0 56 (-1.75%) DUNBLANE GROVE 22 0 0 22 31 0 1 (3.23%) 0 30 (-3.23%) DUNDEE CLOSE 14 0 0 14 22 0 1 (4.55%) 0 21 (-4.55%) DUNOON CLOSE 13 0 0 13 18 0 0 0 18 Page 190 DUNROBIN CLOSE 20 0 0 20 39 0 0 0 39 FUSTIAN AVENUE 0 34 0 34 0 0 0 0 0 GALLOWAY CLOSE 18 0 0 18 41 0 0 0 41 GIRVAN WALK 3 0 0 3 4 0 0 0 4 GLENCOE CLOSE 31 0 0 31 53 0 0 0 53 GREENOCK DRIVE 35 0 0 35 63 0 1 (1.59%) 0 62 (-1.59%) HEADY HILL CLOSE 5 0 0 5 11 0 0 0 11 HEYS LANE 7 0 0 7 11 0 0 0 11 LANGHOLME WAY 18 0 0 18 32 0 0 0 32 LEWIS DRIVE 14 0 0 14 20 0 0 0 20 LOCHAWE CLOSE 37 0 0 37 53 0 0 0 53 LOCHINVER GROVE 27 0 0 27 44 0 1 (2.27%) 0 43 (-2.27%) LORNE WAY 18 0 0 18 32 0 0 0 32 OTHER ELECTORS 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 PORTREE COURT 12 0 0 12 22 0 0 0 22 SELKIRK PLACE 9 0 0 9 12 0 0 0 12 SHUTTLE DRIVE 0 63 0 63 0 0 0 0 0 SKYE CLOSE 12 0 0 12 20 0 0 0 20 STIRLING PLACE 9 0 0 9 15 0 0 0 15 STRATHAVEN PLACE 9 0 0 9 18 0 1 (5.56%) 0 17 (-5.56%) STROMNESS GROVE 9 0 0 9 16 0 0 0 16 SUTHERLAND ROAD 56 0 0 56 80 0 2 (2.50%) 0 78 (-2.50%) TRIPPEAR WAY 0 57 0 57 0 4 0 0 4 WEAVER CLOSE 0 57 0 57 0 2 0 2 2

ELECSTAT - Elector Statistics by Area/PD/Street Page: 132 Elector Stttc  reStreet

including other electors Printed: 28 June 2011 o e Elector Street etl  !rt ##e# to elete#( rre't  !rt ##e# to elete# &&lc't ( rre't  l"e# $e%ter  l"e# $e%ter e'#'% 6otl 7or 8 R( 9 44A A03BA0CHFDE ) 01A)@ 01200 0H B)C5FDE 0H B)C5FDE A 01200 B)C))DE

KD - ARGYLE STREET 32 0 0 32 55 0 1 (1.82%) 0 54 (-1.82%) BIRCHFIELD AVENUE 32 0 0 32 59 0 0 0 59 BURY OLD ROAD 59 0 0 59 105 0 2 (1.90%) 0 103 (-1.90%) CALLANDER SQUARE 12 0 0 12 26 0 0 0 26 CRAIL PLACE 10 0 0 10 18 0 0 0 18 ESSEX AVENUE 26 0 0 26 44 0 0 0 44 GORDON WAY 41 0 0 41 72 0 0 0 72 GRASSINGTON DRIVE 32 0 0 32 55 0 0 0 55 HAMILTON WAY 2 0 0 2 4 0 0 0 4 HARRIS CLOSE 33 0 0 33 53 0 1 (1.89%) 0 52 (-1.89%) HAWICK GROVE 13 0 0 13 21 0 0 0 21 Page 191 HEAP STREET 16 0 0 16 23 0 0 0 23 HUNTLEY WAY 17 0 0 17 27 0 0 0 27 HUNTLY WAY 8 0 0 8 7 0 1 (14.29%) 0 6 (-14.29%) LANARK CLOSE 25 0 0 25 48 0 0 0 48 LAVERTON CLOSE 13 0 0 13 20 0 1 (5.00%) 0 19 (-5.00%) LENNOX WALK 14 0 0 14 18 0 0 0 18 LEWIS DRIVE 127 0 9(7.09%) 118 203 0 4 (1.97%) 0 199 (-1.97%) MOSS HALL ROAD 11 0 0 11 22 0 0 0 22 OTHER ELECTORS 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 PARTH STREET 5 0 0 5 7 0 0 0 7 STANBURY CLOSE 8 0 0 8 16 0 0 0 16 SUSSEX AVENUE 18 0 0 18 31 0 0 0 31 SUTHERLAND ROAD 34 0 0 34 52 0 2 (3.85%) 0 50 (-3.85%) 6otl 7or 8 R 9 @54 ) 4 B0C@3DE @5) 452 ) 0A B0CAADE ) 4FH B90CAADE

KE - AGINCOURT STREET 82 0 0 82 127 0 2 (1.57%) 0 125 (-1.57%) ALBERT STREET 36 0 0 36 54 0 1 (1.85%) 0 53 (-1.85%) ARGYLE CRESCENT 16 0 0 16 24 0 0 0 24 ARGYLE STREET 34 0 0 34 67 0 3 (4.48%) 0 64 (-4.48%) BANK STREET 12 0 0 12 15 0 0 0 15 BARKER STREET 26 0 0 26 46 0 0 0 46 BRAYSHAW CLOSE 31 0 0 31 69 0 0 0 69

ELECSTAT - Elector Statistics by Area/PD/Street Page: 133 Elector Stttc  reStreet

including other electors Printed: 28 June 2011 o e Elector Street etl  !rt ##e# to elete#( rre't  !rt ##e# to elete# &&lc't ( rre't  l"e# $e%ter  l"e# $e%ter e'#'%

KE - BRIDGE STREET 3 0 0 3 4 0 0 0 4 BROADFIELD STREET 18 0 0 18 28 0 0 0 28 BURY STREET 50 0 0 50 73 0 2 (2.74%) 0 71 (-2.74%) CLEMSHAW CLOSE 22 0 0 22 47 0 0 0 47 CROWN ROAD 24 0 0 24 32 3 (9.38%) 2 (6.25%) 0 33 (3.13%) MARLOR COURT, DERBY STREET 54 0 0 54 76 0 0 0 76 DERBY STREET 23 0 0 23 43 0 0 0 43 DUKE STREET 32 0 0 32 58 1 (1.72%) 0 0 59 (1.72%) EGERTON STREET 13 0 0 13 19 0 0 0 19 GLAZEBROOK CLOSE 19 0 0 19 40 0 0 0 40 Page 192 HIGH STREET 58 0 0 58 68 0 1 (1.47%) 0 67 (-1.47%) JURA GROVE 15 0 0 15 25 0 0 0 25 KERSHAW STREET 7 0 0 7 14 0 0 0 14 BRIDGEWOOD LODGE, MARGARET 30 0 0 30 29 0 0 0 29 STREET MARGARET STREET 13 0 0 13 19 0 0 0 19 MASON STREET 3 0 0 3 3 1 (33.33%) 0 0 4 (33.33%) MELLOR BROW 8 0 0 8 16 1 (6.25%) 0 0 17 (6.25%) MELTON CLOSE 20 0 0 20 38 2 (5.26%) 0 0 40 (5.26%) MELTON STREET 40 0 0 40 67 0 0 0 67 MILLS STREET 12 0 0 12 21 0 0 0 21 MOOR STREET 28 0 0 28 44 1 (2.27%) 2 (4.55%) 0 43 (-2.27%) NEW YORK STREET 20 0 0 20 33 0 0 0 33 OTHER ELECTORS 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 PASTURE CLOSE 19 0 0 19 32 0 0 0 32 PEEL STREET 3 0 0 3 5 0 1 (20.00%) 0 4 (-20.00%) PILSWORTH ROAD 90 0 0 90 148 0 0 0 148 REGENT CLOSE 6 0 0 6 9 0 0 0 9 REGENT STREET 35 0 0 35 66 0 0 0 66 RIVERSHILL DRIVE 20 0 0 20 36 0 0 0 36 ROSE HILL STREET 44 0 0 44 72 0 0 0 72 SHORT STREET 11 0 0 11 15 0 1 (6.67%) 0 14 (-6.67%) SOUTH AVENUE 39 0 0 39 51 0 1 (1.96%) 0 50 (-1.96%) SOUTH STREET 8 0 0 8 13 0 0 0 13 TOWER STREET 29 0 0 29 46 0 1 (2.17%) 0 45 (-2.17%)

ELECSTAT - Elector Statistics by Area/PD/Street Page: 134 Elector Stttc  reStreet

including other electors Printed: 28 June 2011 o e Elector Street etl  !rt ##e# to elete#( rre't  !rt ##e# to elete# &&lc't ( rre't  l"e# $e%ter  l"e# $e%ter e'#'%

KE - UNITY CLOSE 12 0 0 12 21 0 0 0 21 UNITY CRESCENT 56 0 0 56 93 0 0 0 93 UNITY STREET 34 0 0 34 61 0 0 0 61 VICTORY WAY 30 0 0 30 38 0 0 0 38 WEAVER CLOSE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 WHAM STREET 13 0 0 13 19 0 0 0 19 WILTON STREET 26 0 0 26 36 0 0 0 36 WINDSOR AVENUE 32 0 0 32 52 0 0 0 52 YEW STREET 18 0 0 18 38 0 0 0 38 6otl 7or 8 RE 9 01AF@ ) ) 01AF@ A1)@) 4 B)CHHDE 0F B)C53DE ) A1)HA B9)C34DE WES6 EVWPP @10)H A03BHC0FDE 4B)C05DE @13)5 51234 3H B)C34DE 5H B)C4FDE A 51@54 B9)C@5DE Page 193

ELECSTAT - Elector Statistics by Area/PD/Street Page: 135 Elector Stttc  reStreet

including other electors Printed: 28 June 2011 o e Elector Street etl  !rt ##e# to elete#( rre't  !rt ##e# to elete# &&lc't ( rre't  l"e# $e%ter  l"e# $e%ter e'#'%

PA - ELLIS LANE 5 0 0 5 6 0 0 0 6 HEYWOOD OLD ROAD,BOWLEE 68 0 0 68 114 1 (0.88%) 0 0 115 (0.88%) OTHER ELECTORS 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 RHODES GREEN 11 0 0 11 19 0 0 0 19 SIMON LANE 5 0 0 5 8 0 0 0 8 6otl 7or 8  9 4) ) ) 4) 0HF 0 B)C25DE ) ) 0H5 B)C25DE

PB - ABBOTSFORD DRIVE 26 0 0 26 47 1 (2.13%) 0 0 48 (2.13%) BARRATT GARDENS 36 0 0 36 63 0 1 (1.59%) 0 62 (-1.59%)

Page 194 BIRCH 2 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 2 BISHOP MARSHALL WAY 17 0 0 17 30 0 0 0 30 BISHOP'S MEADOW 12 0 0 12 25 0 0 0 25 CASSIDY GARDENS 8 0 0 8 15 0 0 0 15 CREATON WAY 9 0 0 9 18 0 1 (5.56%) 0 17 (-5.56%) LODGE VIEW, HEYWOOD OLD ROAD 4 0 0 4 7 0 0 0 7 HEYWOOD OLD ROAD,BIRCH 39 0 0 39 73 1 (1.37%) 0 0 74 (1.37%) HEYWOOD OLD ROAD,BOWLEE 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 2 HOLLIN LANE 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 KNIGHT CRESCENT 36 0 0 36 63 0 0 0 63 LANGLEY LANE 6 0 0 6 10 0 0 0 10 TOP'O'TH'HILL FARM, MANCHESTER 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 2 ROAD,BIRCH OTHER ELECTORS 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 RIMINGTON FOLD 14 0 0 14 33 0 0 0 33 RUSCOMBE FOLD 11 0 0 11 27 0 0 0 27 SILVERTON GROVE 23 0 0 23 50 0 1 (2.00%) 0 49 (-2.00%) TUDOR GROVE 64 0 0 64 103 0 1 (0.97%) 0 102 (-0.97%) WHITTLE LANE 6 0 0 6 11 0 0 0 11 WRIGLEY FOLD 19 0 0 19 38 0 0 0 38 6otl 7or 8 G 9 332 ) ) 332 2A0 A B)C3ADE H B)C2HDE ) 204 B9)C3ADE

PC - ALSTON WALK 11 0 0 11 15 0 0 0 15 ASHNESS DRIVE 9 0 0 9 16 0 0 0 16 BASSENTHWAITE CLOSE 10 0 0 10 24 0 1 (4.17%) 0 23 (-4.17%)

ELECSTAT - Elector Statistics by Area/PD/Street Page: 136 Elector Stttc  reStreet

including other electors Printed: 28 June 2011 o e Elector Street etl  !rt ##e# to elete#( rre't  !rt ##e# to elete# &&lc't ( rre't  l"e# $e%ter  l"e# $e%ter e'#'%

PC - BOWNESS COURT 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 BOWNESS ROAD 12 0 18(150.00%) -6 25 0 3 (12.00%) 0 22 (-12.00%) BRAITHWAITE ROAD 48 0 0 48 78 0 0 0 78 BRISCO WALK 3 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 1 BROUGHTON CLOSE 19 0 0 19 26 0 0 0 26 CALGARTH DRIVE 17 0 0 17 32 0 0 0 32 CARDINAL MEWS 31 0 0 31 35 0 0 0 35 CASTLERIGG DRIVE 59 0 0 59 49 1 (2.04%) 0 0 50 (2.04%) CAULDALE CLOSE 12 0 0 12 22 0 0 0 22 CAUSEY DRIVE 8 0 0 8 9 0 0 0 9 CLIFTON WALK 12 0 0 12 12 2 (16.67%) 0 0 14 (16.67%) DERWENT ROAD 48 0 0 48 75 0 0 0 75 Page 195 ELTERWATER CLOSE 18 0 0 18 36 0 0 0 36 GALE DRIVE 5 0 0 5 7 0 0 0 7 GRISEDALE CLOSE 14 0 0 14 30 0 0 0 30 HELVELLYN DRIVE 20 0 0 20 37 0 0 0 37 IREBY CLOSE 2 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 2 ISEL WALK 10 0 0 10 14 0 0 0 14 KENTMERE DRIVE 19 0 0 19 28 0 0 0 28 2 MILLBECK GARDENS, KESWICK 24 0 0 24 28 0 1 (3.57%) 0 27 (-3.57%) CLOSE 4 MILLBECK GARDENS, KESWICK 24 0 0 24 27 0 0 0 27 CLOSE KESWICK COURT 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 LANGLEY LANE 38 0 0 38 57 0 0 0 57 LATRIGG CRESCENT 82 0 0 82 123 0 2 (1.63%) 0 121 (-1.63%) LINDALE DRIVE 10 0 0 10 14 0 0 0 14 LINGMELL CLOSE 12 0 0 12 13 0 0 0 13 LONGTHWAITE CLOSE 14 0 0 14 14 0 0 0 14 MARTINDALE CRESCENT 99 0 0 99 131 0 1 (0.76%) 0 130 (-0.76%) MILLBECK COURT 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 MILLBECK ROAD 28 0 0 28 49 0 0 0 49 MOSEDALE ROAD 16 0 0 16 20 0 0 0 20 NEWLANDS WALK 30 0 0 30 45 0 2 (4.44%) 0 43 (-4.44%) NEWTON CRESCENT 74 0 0 74 125 0 0 0 125

ELECSTAT - Elector Statistics by Area/PD/Street Page: 137 Elector Stttc  reStreet

including other electors Printed: 28 June 2011 o e Elector Street etl  !rt ##e# to elete#( rre't  !rt ##e# to elete# &&lc't ( rre't  l"e# $e%ter  l"e# $e%ter e'#'%

PC - OTHER ELECTORS 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 RAVENGLASS DRIVE 16 0 0 16 27 0 0 0 27 SKIDDAW CLOSE 19 0 0 19 34 2 (5.88%) 0 0 36 (5.88%) STAINTON DRIVE 6 0 0 6 13 0 0 0 13 STYHEAD DRIVE 26 0 0 26 43 0 0 0 43 SWINSIDE CLOSE 4 0 0 4 4 0 0 0 4 SYLVAN CLOSE,WOOD STREET 6 0 0 6 10 0 0 0 10 THURSBY WALK 10 0 0 10 16 0 0 0 16 WATCHGATE CLOSE 11 0 0 11 15 0 0 0 15 WINDERMERE ROAD 122 0 0 122 179 1 (0.56%) 0 0 180 (0.56%) Page 196 WOOD STREET 12 0 0 12 22 0 0 2 22 WYTHBURN ROAD 16 0 0 16 26 0 0 0 26 6otl 7or 8 ( 9 01)4) ) 05 B0C2@DE 01)FA 012)4 2 B)C3FDE 0) B)C2ADE A 012)@ B9)CA@DE

PD - AMBLESIDE CLOSE 10 0 0 10 10 0 0 0 10 BARLEYFIELD WALK 27 0 0 27 36 0 0 0 36 BOARDALE DRIVE 18 0 0 18 27 0 0 0 27 CARMINE FOLD 27 0 0 27 49 0 0 0 49 CINNABAR DRIVE 24 0 0 24 51 1 (1.96%) 0 0 52 (1.96%) CROSSBANK WAY 12 0 0 12 15 0 0 0 15 DURNFORD STREET 95 0 0 95 172 3 (1.74%) 3 (1.74%) 0 172 EMERSON DRIVE 13 0 0 13 24 0 0 0 24 EYCOTT DRIVE 23 0 0 23 44 0 0 0 44 FAIRFIELD ROAD 112 0 0 112 184 0 3 (1.63%) 0 181 (-1.63%) FENWICK DRIVE 16 0 0 16 27 0 0 0 27 GABLE DRIVE 34 0 0 34 42 0 2 (4.76%) 0 40 (-4.76%) GAVEL WALK 19 0 0 19 25 1 (4.00%) 1 (4.00%) 0 25 GILPIN WALK 13 0 0 13 24 0 0 0 24 GOWAN DRIVE 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 HAWKSHEAD DRIVE 74 0 0 74 139 0 1 (0.72%) 0 138 (-0.72%) HIGHER WOOD STREET 31 0 0 31 54 0 0 0 54 HILTON STREET 3 0 0 3 6 0 2 (33.33%) 0 4 (-33.33%) JOSEPH STREET 6 0 0 6 7 0 0 0 7 KENDAL WALK 4 0 0 4 4 0 0 0 4

ELECSTAT - Elector Statistics by Area/PD/Street Page: 138 Elector Stttc  reStreet

including other electors Printed: 28 June 2011 o e Elector Street etl  !rt ##e# to elete#( rre't  !rt ##e# to elete# &&lc't ( rre't  l"e# $e%ter  l"e# $e%ter e'#'%

PD - LONG STREET 4 0 0 4 2 0 0 0 2 LOWTHER CRESCENT 39 0 0 39 70 0 0 0 70 MARDALE DRIVE 14 0 0 14 24 0 0 0 24 MELLALIEU STREET 89 0 0 89 122 0 0 0 122 OLD RECTORY GARDENS, 2 0 0 2 7 0 0 0 7 MELLALIEU STREET MIRFIELD DRIVE 29 0 0 29 54 0 0 0 54 OTHER ELECTORS 1 0 0 1 2 0 1 (50.00%) 0 1 (-50.00%) RECTORY STREET 50 0 0 50 94 0 0 0 94 REDSCAR WALK 17 0 0 17 32 0 0 0 32 ROSGILL DRIVE 11 0 0 11 19 0 0 0 19 SEPIA GROVE 16 0 0 16 27 0 0 0 27 Page 197 STAVELEY CLOSE 15 0 0 15 21 0 0 0 21 THROSTLE HALL COURT 28 0 0 28 51 0 0 0 51 TRAYNOR CLOSE 30 0 0 30 49 0 1 (2.04%) 0 48 (-2.04%) ULDALE DRIVE 14 0 0 14 26 0 0 0 26 WARREN CLOSE 7 0 0 7 6 0 0 0 6 WOOD STREET 86 0 0 86 118 1 (0.85%) 3 (2.54%) 0 116 (-1.69%) WREN GARDENS 26 0 0 26 38 0 0 0 38 YEWDALE DRIVE 19 0 0 19 27 0 0 0 27 6otl 7or 8  9 01)@4 ) ) 01)@4 01F3) 2 B)C3@DE 0F B)C45DE ) 01F04 B9)C2HDE

PE - ALLONBY WALK 8 0 0 8 11 0 1 (9.09%) 0 10 (-9.09%) ASBY CLOSE 16 0 0 16 28 0 0 0 28 BOWNESS ROAD 147 0 0 147 221 2 (0.90%) 3 (1.36%) 0 220 (-0.45%) BROOMFIELD CRESCENT 70 0 0 70 140 0 0 0 140 BROWNRIGG CLOSE 24 0 0 24 40 0 1 (2.50%) 0 39 (-2.50%) CARROCK WALK 13 0 0 13 17 0 0 0 17 COPELAND CLOSE 50 0 0 50 83 0 0 0 83 DACRE CLOSE 16 0 0 16 29 0 1 (3.45%) 0 28 (-3.45%) DEAN WALK 14 0 0 14 19 0 0 0 19 DUNDRAW CLOSE 2 0 0 2 5 0 0 0 5 FAIRBANK DRIVE 24 0 0 24 42 0 0 0 42 GATESGARTH ROAD 84 0 0 84 116 0 2 (1.72%) 1 114 (-1.72%)

ELECSTAT - Elector Statistics by Area/PD/Street Page: 139 Elector Stttc  reStreet

including other electors Printed: 28 June 2011 o e Elector Street etl  !rt ##e# to elete#( rre't  !rt ##e# to elete# &&lc't ( rre't  l"e# $e%ter  l"e# $e%ter e'#'%

PE - GOWAN DRIVE 1 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 3 HARTSOP DRIVE 43 0 0 43 65 0 0 0 65 LINGMOOR CLOSE 29 0 0 29 46 2 (4.35%) 0 0 48 (4.35%) LORTON CLOSE 41 0 0 41 48 0 0 0 48 MILLBECK ROAD 34 0 0 34 46 0 0 0 46 OTHER ELECTORS 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 OXENDALE DRIVE 19 0 0 19 38 0 1 (2.63%) 0 37 (-2.63%) PARKSIDE, BOWNESS ROAD 13 0 0 13 12 0 5 (41.67%) 0 7 (-41.67%) POOLEY CLOSE 8 0 0 8 12 0 0 0 12 ROSTHWAITE CLOSE 26 0 0 26 51 0 0 0 51 Page 198 ROWRAH CRESCENT 148 0 0 148 228 1 (0.44%) 4 (1.75%) 0 225 (-1.32%) SEARNESS ROAD 94 0 0 94 127 0 2 (1.57%) 0 125 (-1.57%) SEATOLLER DRIVE 12 0 0 12 14 0 0 0 14 THRELKELD CLOSE 7 0 0 7 12 0 1 (8.33%) 0 11 (-8.33%) THRELKELD COURT 24 0 0 24 25 0 0 0 25 THRELKELD ROAD 30 0 0 30 50 0 0 0 50 TINSDALE WALK 13 0 0 13 18 0 0 0 18 TORVER DRIVE 10 0 0 10 17 0 0 0 17 ULLOCK WALK 11 0 0 11 11 0 0 0 11 WALTON CLOSE 10 0 0 10 24 0 0 0 24 WHINFELL DRIVE 42 0 0 42 63 0 0 0 63 WINDERMERE ROAD 57 0 0 57 96 0 1 (1.04%) 0 95 (-1.04%) WOOD STREET 1 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 3 6otl 7or 8 E 9 010HA ) ) 010HA 01F2) @ B)CA5DE AA B0CA@DE 0 01FH3 B9)C4FDE

PF - BAMPTON WALK 5 0 0 5 6 0 0 0 6 BONSCALE CRESCENT 132 0 0 132 224 0 1 (0.45%) 0 223 (-0.45%) BORROWDALE ROAD 100 0 0 100 155 1 (0.65%) 1 (0.65%) 0 155 BOULTERS CLOSE 4 0 0 4 4 0 0 0 4 BRATTRAY DRIVE 11 0 0 11 21 0 0 0 21 BURNSIDE CRESCENT 64 0 0 64 98 0 0 0 98 BUTTERMERE DRIVE 29 0 0 29 44 0 0 0 44 CALDBECK DRIVE 43 0 0 43 57 0 1 (1.75%) 0 56 (-1.75%) CARTMEL WALK 30 0 0 30 48 0 0 0 48

ELECSTAT - Elector Statistics by Area/PD/Street Page: 140 Elector Stttc  reStreet

including other electors Printed: 28 June 2011 o e Elector Street etl  !rt ##e# to elete#( rre't  !rt ##e# to elete# &&lc't ( rre't  l"e# $e%ter  l"e# $e%ter e'#'%

PF - CONISTON DRIVE 29 0 0 29 51 1 (1.96%) 2 (3.92%) 0 50 (-1.96%) CRUMMOCK DRIVE 18 0 0 18 30 0 0 0 30 D'OLIVEIRA COURT,WOOD STREET 46 0 0 46 50 1 (2.00%) 1 (2.00%) 0 50 DOVEDALE COURT 42 0 0 42 49 0 0 0 49 DUDDON WALK 18 0 0 18 34 1 (2.94%) 0 0 35 (2.94%) DUFTON WALK 16 0 0 16 27 0 0 0 27 DUNMAIL DRIVE 17 0 0 17 23 0 1 (4.35%) 0 22 (-4.35%) ENNERDALE ROAD 61 0 0 61 108 0 1 (0.93%) 0 107 (-0.93%) ESKDALE DRIVE 29 0 0 29 46 0 1 (2.17%) 0 45 (-2.17%) ESMONT DRIVE 10 0 0 10 21 0 0 0 21 GALE DRIVE 5 0 0 5 10 0 0 0 10 GRANGE WALK 15 0 0 15 20 0 0 0 20 Page 199 GRASMERE WALK 14 0 0 14 21 0 0 0 21 GREYSTOKE DRIVE 25 0 0 25 42 0 0 0 42 GRISDALE DRIVE 3 0 0 3 5 1 (20.00%) 0 0 6 (20.00%) HAWESWATER DRIVE 17 0 0 17 28 0 0 0 28 HAWESWATER MEWS 22 0 0 22 22 0 0 0 22 HESKETH WALK 13 0 0 13 16 2 (12.50%) 0 0 18 (12.50%) HIGHER WOOD STREET 19 0 0 19 38 0 0 0 38 HILLCREST 10 0 0 10 15 0 0 0 15 HOLLIN LANE 59 0 0 59 102 1 (0.98%) 2 (1.96%) 0 101 (-0.98%) HOLLINS DRIVE 11 0 0 11 18 0 0 0 18 HONISTER DRIVE 17 0 0 17 32 0 0 0 32 KIRKSTONE DRIVE 15 0 0 15 20 0 2 (10.00%) 0 18 (-10.00%) LANGDALE DRIVE 27 0 0 27 55 0 2 (3.64%) 0 53 (-3.64%) LANGLEY AVENUE 8 0 0 8 10 0 0 0 10 LANGLEY LANE 40 0 0 40 72 0 0 0 72 LEE STREET 9 0 0 9 13 0 0 0 13 MELLALIEU STREET 31 0 0 31 42 0 2 (4.76%) 0 40 (-4.76%) MOSEDALE ROAD 57 0 0 57 105 0 2 (1.90%) 0 103 (-1.90%) MOWBRAY WALK 10 0 0 10 15 0 0 0 15 NEWTON CRESCENT 28 0 0 28 46 0 0 0 46 OTHER ELECTORS 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 PATTERDALE DRIVE 14 0 0 14 25 0 0 0 25

ELECSTAT - Elector Statistics by Area/PD/Street Page: 141 Elector Stttc  reStreet

including other electors Printed: 28 June 2011 o e Elector Street etl  !rt ##e# to elete#( rre't  !rt ##e# to elete# &&lc't ( rre't  l"e# $e%ter  l"e# $e%ter e'#'%

PF - ROSEMOUNT 27 0 0 27 34 0 3 (8.82%) 0 31 (-8.82%) ROTHAY DRIVE 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 2 SEASCALE WALK 7 0 0 7 9 0 0 0 9 SEATHWAITE CLOSE 18 0 0 18 32 0 2 (6.25%) 0 30 (-6.25%) ST BEES WALK 4 0 0 4 5 0 1 (20.00%) 0 4 (-20.00%) TALKIN DRIVE 33 0 0 33 50 0 0 0 50 THIRLMERE DRIVE 46 0 0 46 86 0 0 0 86 THIRLMERE MEWS 9 0 0 9 14 0 0 0 14 ULLSWATER DRIVE 36 0 0 36 74 0 0 0 74 WASDALE DRIVE 9 0 0 9 16 0 0 0 16 Page 200 WINDERMERE MEWS 10 0 0 10 13 0 2 (15.38%) 0 11 (-15.38%) WINDERMERE ROAD 179 0 0 179 276 0 1 (0.36%) 0 275 (-0.36%) SAXONSIDE, WINDERMERE ROAD 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 WINSTER DRIVE 15 0 0 15 27 0 1 (3.70%) 0 26 (-3.70%) LANGFIELD NURSING HOME, WOOD 1 0 0 1 44 0 1 (2.27%) 0 43 (-2.27%) STREET WOOD STREET 13 0 0 13 23 0 0 0 23 WOODHILL CLOSE 17 0 0 17 32 0 0 0 32 WOODHILL 29 0 0 29 49 0 1 (2.04%) 0 48 (-2.04%) WYTHBURN ROAD 17 0 0 17 28 0 0 0 28 6otl 7or 8 ! 9 012H2 ) ) 012H2 A1253 5 B)C3)DE 30 B0C02DE ) A122) B9)C52DE WES6 TSIE6PQ @1323 ) 05B)C3HDE @13H@ 51@@) A5 B)C33DE 5H B)C45DE 3 51H4H B9)C2@DE

ELECSTAT - Elector Statistics by Area/PD/Street Page: 142 Elector Stttc  reStreet

including other electors Printed: 28 June 2011 o e Elector Street etl  !rt ##e# to elete#( rre't  !rt ##e# to elete# &&lc't ( rre't  l"e# $e%ter  l"e# $e%ter e'#'% 401A2A 3H2B)C35DE H))B)CHHDE 401A)5 0@4122H F2A B)CH5DE 015A4 B0C0@DE A) 0@51@4F B9)C2FDE Page 201

ELECSTAT - Elector Statistics by Area/PD/Street Page: 143 Elector Stttc  reStreet

including other electors Printed: 28 June 2011 o e Elector Street etl  !rt ##e# to elete#( rre't  !rt ##e# to elete# &&lc't ( rre't  l"e# $e%ter  l"e# $e%ter e'#'%

Ur'# 6otl 401A2A 3H2B)C35DE H)) B)CHHDE 401A)5 0@4122H F2A B)CH5DE 015A4 B0C0@DE A) 0@51@4F B9)C2FDE Page 202

ELECSTAT - Elector Statistics by Area/PD/Street Page: 144 Appendix 4

Recommendations of Electoral Services Officer and Acting Returning Officer

1. To identify (where possible) alternative polling stations where mobile polling stations are used as listed below-

a. AB Chatsworth Street, Rochdale b. AD Bentley Street/Tintern Avenue, Rochdale c. GD Heybrook School, Park Road, Rochdale d. HD Elephant & Castle, Bury Road, Rochdale e. IF Ryefields, Braddocks Close, Rochdale f. QE James Andrew Street/Oldham Road, Middleton g. QF Middleton Arena, Corporation Street, Middleton h. SD Ogden Baptist Church, Cedar Lane, Newhey i. TD Ryefields, Braddocks Close, Rochdale

QE – To pursue the option of using Springvale Youth Centre as a polling station or the possibility of using Middleton Arena instead.

QF - Have liaised with Middleton Arena and for future elections a room in the Arena will be used. This will be the sports hall for the 2012 elections.

SD – Have spoken to someone at the church as to the possibility of using the church instead. They need to liaise with other committee members and feed back to me accordingly.

2. To identify alternative polling stations for polling district SA – Milnrow Cricket Club, Harbour Lane - and polling district BB – Newbold Housing Office, Witley Road (possibly use the Catholic Church on Kingsway).

To pursue.

3. To merge polling district CF (265 electors) with polling district CE or identify an alternative polling station for polling district CF – Champness Hall, Drake Street. Possibly use a room in the Town Hall?

For decision.

4. To merge polling district ED (879 electors) with polling district EE and use the Bowls Pavilion in Chesham Gardens as the polling station. For decision.

Page 203

5. To merge polling district FF (551 electors) with polling district FG with 2 polling stations instead of 3.

For decision.

6. To merge polling district KC (1611 electors) with polling district KD and use Darnhill Library as the polling station or identify an alternative polling station for polling district KD – Heywood & Darnhill Boxing Club.

For decision. Still need to find an alternative venue to the Boxing Club.

7. To merge polling district MD (31 electors) with polling district MC. The electors of polling district MD currently vote at the same station as the electors for polling district PB (St Mary’s Church, Langley Lane) which initially would seem the more obvious option. This cannot be considered in this review as the local authority is unable to change ward boundaries – this has to be done by the Boundary Commission.

For decision.

8. To merge polling district PB (621 electors) with polling district PC and use Langley Library as the polling station.

For decision.

9. To merge polling district QA (563 electors) with polling district QB.

For decision.

10. To merge polling district QF (274 electors) with polling district QE and possibly use a space in Middleton Sports Arena as the polling station.

For decision.

11. To merge polling district RF (45 electors) with polling district RE.

For decision.

12. To merge polling district LE (1008 electors) with district LD and for all electors to vote at Heywood Sports Village.

For decision.

Page 204

13. To merge polling district MF (833 electors) with district ME and for all electors to vote at Hollin SureStart Children’s Centre.

For decision.

14. If option 9 is not implemented (merging QA and QB) could merge polling district QC (898 electors) with district QB and for all electors to vote at St Stephen’s Church Hall.

For decision.

Page 205 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 206 Appendix 5

Responses from consultation

Bamford

Councillor - Regarding the polling station behind the Elephant and Castle. A report of an accident on polling day was reported and expressed the view that the polling station is not fit for purpose.

Elections office - Trying to find alternative venues for all mobile units throughout the borough. Have looked at options for the Elephant & Castle site in the past and was unable to find a substitute location within the boundaries of the polling district. Any suggestions for an alternative venue would be appreciated.

West Heywood

Councillor - Use of boxing hut needs review. This was agreed by a second councillor from the ward

Elections Office – asked if there were any alternative venues in that polling district that could be pursued?

Councillor – Recommended the church

North Middleton

Councillor 1- Would appreciate the use of portable / portakabin stations being reviewed.

In North Middleton, two portable stations are used, these stations are placed within close proximity to two public venues, Middleton Arena and Springvale Youth Centre.

Elections Office - All mobile polling stations are being reviewed as part of the process. Previously, Springvale Youth Centre was used as a polling station but we were told that we could no longer use it approximately 4 years ago. Middleton Arena has been approached in the past to see if there was any suitable room to use there, but was told at the time that they could not accommodate us. Will pursue both venues again as part of this review.

Councillor 2 – Suggested Sadler Street Township Offices be used now for Rectory Street etc instead of the Arena portakabin.

Elections office – To investigate

Councillor 1 - Springvale has now been refurbished, and is managed by Ed Kelly / Jayne Taylor of RMBC youth service

Submissions by Councillor Neil Emmott to review of polling districts, polling places and polling stations.

1. General and Hopwood Hall ward . It has become apparent that the decision to try and not use schools as polling stations has caused considerable difficulties for the Council. This has frequently resulted in the Council using premises that are not very good for polling stations, some that have poor access and often no toilet facilities for polling station staff. Additionally, there have been some increased cost implications

Page 207 for the authority in hiring out more expensive, yet less suitable venues. An example of this in 2011 was the decision to cease using Hopwood County Primary School, Magdala St in Hopwood Hall ward. Previously two polling districts (MB and MC) both voted at the school. In 2011 the Council had to hire 2 separate venues (St. John’s Church Hall and Hopwood Bowling Pavilion) to cover both polling districts. Neither venue was particularly suitable. The lighting was poor at St. John’s and the bowling pavilion was too small. On the other hand, Hopwood County Primary School is well lit, has disabled access and is big enough to comfortably accommodate two polling districts. I understand that very often, head teachers are reluctant to close schools for a day. I’m also aware of information that allows schools to open on another day in the school year so schools don’t lose a day. However, I believe we are now being put into a position where using inadequate polling stations is seriously affecting our democratic process. We can hardly expect voter turnout to increase if we change the school polling stations that have been used for decades and start using somewhere that is inadequate. 2. West Middleton Ward . Currently, voters living at the bottom end of the Langley Estate (around Fairfield Road, Lowther Crescent, bottom of Wood Street and surrounding areas) have to go all the way to Middleton Training Centre (known colloquially as Harry’s Hut) next to the Old Boar’s Head on Rochdale Rd. This is quite a long way to go. There is All Saints and Martyrs Church nearby on Wood Street. Could we look into the possibility of using the church hall as a polling station? 3. North Heywood Ward . There seems to be 2 small anomalies here. Firstly, the area in polling district LB around Green Lane, Railway St and Bedford currently votes at Heywood Civic Hall. This area was transferred into North Heywood from the former Heywood South ward in the boundary changes in 2004. It would make more sense to put this area into polling district LA that votes at All Soul’s Church, Rochdale Road East. One side of Railway Street and the rest of Green Lane already votes there. All Soul’s is considerably nearer and more convenient than Heywood Civic Hall.

Secondly, Polling district LC that votes at Crimble Croft Community Centre could be extended. During the recent 2011 local elections, many people living almost directly opposite Crimble Croft found it odd that they had to go to vote at All Soul’s in polling district LA. I would suggest possibly using Gorton Street rather than Aspinall Street as the boundary between polling districts LA and LC and have all streets between Gorton Street and Aspinall Street in LC (Wild St, Grove St, Olive St, Adelaide St East etc).I would also include the top bit of Mutual Street (that currently falls into LA) to be put into LC.

Please see amended maps 5A and 5B.

Page 208 Agenda Item 10

REPORT FOR DECISION

Agenda item no:

Middleton Township Committee, 8 September 2011

Report of Head of Planning and Regulation

Draft Middleton Green Infrastructure Action Plan

Wards affected: Hopwood Hall, East Report Author: Carey Robinson Middleton, North Middleton, South Middleton & West Middleton Telephone: (01706) 924365

1. It is recommended that:

1.1 Committee approve the draft Middleton Green Infrastructure Action Plan as presented as the basis for public consultation on developing and delivering green infrastructure enhancements in Middleton Township.

2. Reasons for recommendation:

2.1 To ensure that the local community, interest groups and stakeholders have an appropriate opportunity to read, ask questions about and make comments in respect of the draft Action Plan.

3. Alternatives considered:

3.1 An alternative approach would be to produce a borough green infrastructure strategy without specific Township Plans. This would reduce the opportunity to highlight and promote specific green infrastructure objectives for Middleton Township and may result in missed opportunities for investment in green infrastructure through development, environmental management and external funding bids. It would also reduce the potential to co-ordinate local environmental management and improvement in support of key priorities such as quality of place, tackling climate change and improving health and well being.

1

Page 209

4. Consultation proposed:

4.1 The draft Plan has been written to date in consultation with a range of local groups, council officers and other stakeholders, including presentations to the Environment Forum, Langley Environment Group, a drop-in information day for the public and discussions with key council services and stakeholders to establish the main issues and priorities for green infrastructure in Middleton.

4.2 Detailed consultation arrangements will be agreed with the Township Office. They will include consultation on the draft Plan will include distributing copies via email and post as required to a wide range of interested groups and stakeholders and the document will also be available on the Council’s website. Hard copies will be deposited at various local venues for public inspection and comment.

4.3 The comments received will be published with a schedule of proposed changes which will be presented to Committee with the final draft action plan at an appropriate future meeting.

5. Report

5.1 Green infrastructure is the natural outdoor environment around us and is part of the life support system of the community. It includes all ‘green’ assets from street trees and gardens through a variety of urban open spaces such as playing fields and play areas and to the wider countryside for example in and around Alkrington Woods Local Nature Reserve. These assets individually and collectively provide a number of essential environmental services that support daily life, health and well-being and which support Township’s regeneration and economic growth aspirations.

5.2 The Middleton Green Infrastructure Plan is part of a suite of Township Green Infrastructure Plans currently in preparation covering each part of the borough and supporting a boroughwide Green Infrastructure framework. When completed they will comprise a comprehensive framework for planning and delivering green infrastructure and will provide a valuable body of evidence to help target and attract resources for delivering green infrastructure where it is needed more effectively. The format has been supported by CABE and Natural England as an example of developing good practice.

5.3 The draft Plan will help to ensure that green infrastructure assets are appropriately protected, managed, enhanced and created where necessary. Green Infrastructure can have a value outside its immediate location and beyond Middleton Township. The plan therefore also identifies Middleton’s strategic green infrastructure role for the wider borough and for Greater Manchester. The plan supports delivery of the Middleton Township Plan and key strategic plans in the borough principally Pride of Place, the Borough Renaissance Masterplan and the Local Development Framework. The draft Plan provides a key evidence

2

Page 210 base highlighting opportunities within Middleton Township where Section 106 funds can be most effectively targeted for example in areas of environmental need or greenspace deficiency and will also help to support opportunities for funding bids and partnership working opportunities with a range of agencies such as the Forestry Commission and the Environment Agency.

5.4 The Middleton Green Infrastructure Plan provides a strategic overview of green infrastructure in the Township in terms of its strengths, opportunities and key challenges in terms of quality, quantity and location of green infrastructure and what it needs to do for the township. The plan sets out a series of strategic ‘thematic’ projects which provide the framework for delivering the plan. Within these strategic projects more specific projects and local actions will be required to deliver them on the ground. The strategic projects for Middleton Township are:

1. Middleton Greenways Network – improving accessibility, providing wider links to the countryside and services in surrounding urban areas;

2. Growing, Greener Neighbourhoods in Middleton – improve the range of services, products and functions that are provided by the green infrastructure in Middleton so it is better able to meet the needs of the community. These include local food growing, biodiversity, tackling climate change and flood risk management;

3. Middleton’s Countryside - Improving the quality and green infrastructure functions provided by these landscapes to support tourism and leisure, help Middleton to become more resilient to climate change, manage flood risk and support biodiversity and good management of landscape heritage; and

4. Mills Hill to Middleton Town Centre Corridor - A framework for improvements to green infrastructure as part of any development proposals to ensure that climate change adaptations, flood risk management, access and biodiversity are maintained and enhanced.

5.5 To deliver these strategic projects a range of specific projects both large and small will be required and will include actions by the Council, developers, environmental agencies and utilities providers, voluntary sector organisations and local communities. An annually updated work programme will identify quick wins and projects for development and delivery in the medium and long term and will enable progress to be monitored and reviewed as required. The work programme will be presented to the Township Committee for consideration and endorsement as required.

5.6 Green infrastructure planning and delivery is necessarily a long term process and the plan will be delivered up to 2026 to maximise the opportunities arising from the borough’s Local Development Framework, future development and regeneration plans and proposals and other key plans and strategies related to the local economy, environment, health and well being. It will be reviewed on a three yearly basis to ensure that all plans, strategies and programmes important to Middleton’s future prosperity, growth and well-being are included to maximise green infrastructure delivery opportunities.

3

Page 211

5. Environmental Implications

6.1 The draft Plan provides a framework for strategic and neighbourhood based opportunities to protect, enhance and create green infrastructure in Middleton Township. This will provide improved opportunities to attract investment in the environment and to co-ordinate and target appropriate green infrastructure planning and delivery more effectively.

7. Financial Implications:

7.1 There are no direct financial implications associated with the draft Plan. The draft Plan will enhance opportunities to co-ordinate, target and attract investment in the local environment.

For further Information and Background Papers: For further information about this report or access to any background papers please contact Carey Robinson Tel: 01702 924365

4

Page 212 Middleton Green Infrastructure Action Plan draft: August 2011

Page 213 Contents:

Chapter 1 Why a Green Infrastructure Plan for Middleton? 1 Chapter 2 What is Green Infrastructure? 5 Chapter 3 Policy Context for Green Infrastructure in Middleton 11 Chapter 4 What do we want Green Infrastructure in Middleton to do? 13 Chapter 5 Green Infrastructure in Middleton by Area 21 Chapter 6 Green Infrastructure Objectives for Middleton 29 Chapter 7 Key Partnerships for Delivery 41 Appendix Policy Context (to be completed) 43 Glossary Further References and links

Page 214 Chapter 1: Why a Green Infrastructure Plan for Middleton?

Introduction

Middleton Township has a strong sense of community and identity, with clear ambitions for its people, and the local economy and environment. The quality of the environment in Middleton including its green spaces, watercourses, public realm and countryside is important in shaping how the Township is perceived and experienced by residents, visitors and investors. The environment is also part of Middleton’s essential infrastructure providing a number of key services for the Township and beyond including Rochdale borough and the core of Greater Manchester. This Action Plan sets out Middleton’s particular Green Infrastructure (GI) assets and a series of key objectives and projects to ensure that their value to the Township is fully realised in supporting economic growth, community health and well being and a sustainable environment which can help Middleton address the impacts of climate change.

What is green infrastructure?

The green spaces, open water, trees and gardens which surround, connect and form part of the built environment in Middleton provide a number of essential environmental services that support daily life, health, well-being and which supports the township’s regeneration and economic growth aspirations. Together the green environments and services they provide are known as Middleton’s ‘green infrastructure’, and will be explained in more detail in chapter 2, page 5.

Opportunities for Middleton

Important GI assets in Middleton include its superb woodlands within Alkrington and Hopwood Local Nature Reserves (LNR), its river valleys, the Rochdale Canal and Bowlee Community Park to the west of the township. Middleton also has a rich architectural heritage having a number of fine buildings designed by local architect Edgar Wood and Tonge Hall. The township also has several important formal open spaces including Jubilee Park and Green Flag award winning Truffet Park in Langley. These spaces and local heritage are highly valued as part of the Township’s identity and its visitor offer. They also provide important assets to support biodiversity, access to the countryside, control of pollution and flood risk and people’s movements around Middleton for work, school, access to shops and services and leisure. Green infrastructure opportunities and challenges within Middleton are discussed further in chapter 4, page 13.

Objectives of the Green Infrastructure Plan

The Middleton Green Infrastructure Action Plan will help ensure green infrastructure achieves its full potential to support Middleton’s objectives for growth, regeneration and well being in the community. It will help to deliver the Middleton Township Plan along with the plans and policies of Rochdale borough and Greater Manchester. This Plan sets out the key objectives for green infrastructure, outlined below: y Growing Middleton: A high quality environment will support the Township’s aspirations for economic growth, regeneration and health and well-being. y Active, Healthy Middleton: Provide more opportunities for active and healthy lifestyles.

Middleton GI Action Plan draft. August 2011 Page 215 1 y Accessible Middleton: Enhance and increase routes for walking and cycling to promote active transport, improve health and reduce pollution. y Living Middleton: Enhance wildlife habitats and increase biodiversity and improve access to the natural environment and wildlife for the community. y Resilient Middleton: Ensure that green infrastructure enables Middleton to tackle the effects of climate change and helps with flood risk management. y Visit Middleton: Ensure that Middleton’s environment creates a positive impact by improving gateways and access to the countryside, parks and heritage features to enable the Township to promote a stronger visitor package. y Distinctive Middleton: By delivering all of the above themes Middleton will become a community and township with a high quality environment and a stronger sense of place.

More detail of the green infrastructure objectives for Middleton can be found in chapter 6, page 29. These objectives

Delivering the Plan

The Middleton Green Infrastructure Plan will be delivered through four long term strategic projects that will help to deliver good green infrastructure where it is needed most. These projects are set out in detail in chapter 6, from page 31, but are outlined below:

1. Middleton Greenways Network: Enhancing and improving active transport routes to Middleton’s key heritage assets, countryside and green spaces, particularly from the town centre as well as prioritising routes for commuting and access to schools, employment and services.

2. Growing Greener Neighbourhoods in Middleton: Increasing the range of services, products and functions provided by green infrastructure in Middleton so that it can meet the needs of the community, particularly for flood risk management, adapting to climate change, increasing biodiversity and improving health and well being.

3. Middleton’s Countryside: Enhancing the key destinations within Middleton’s countryside both for the community and tourists by improving links, facilities and promotion.

4. Mills Hill to Middleton Town Centre Corridor: Supporting the regeneration of east Middleton by improving the environmental quality of the strategic corridor between Mills Hill Railway Station and Middleton town centre, particularly linked to the functions and opportunities provided by the River Irk.

These strategic projects will be delivered through a series of large and small actions throughout the life of the Action Plan to 2026. This will maximise the opportunities arising from the borough’s Local Development Framework and a range of other plans, strategies and programmes. It will be reviewed on a three yearly basis to ensure that all plans, strategies and programmes important to Middleton’s future prosperity, growth and well-being are captured and green infrastructure delivery opportunities maximised.

The GI Action Plan will provide a strong and wide ranging evidence base to help target opportunities for delivering improvements. This evidence will be updated as new studies and surveys e.g. for flood risk management and trees and woodlands are published. The GI Plan will support funding bids to external grant programmes e.g. to the Forestry

Middleton GI Action Plan draft. August 2011 Page 216 2 Commission and Environment Agency and help to inform new development and regeneration proposals so that GI requirements and opportunities can be built into the planning and delivery of schemes. The GI Action Plan will also provide a basis to identify opportunities for voluntary sector led projects and those proposed and driven by local communities which will include opportunities for training, education and building local capacity to improve and manage the environment.

The Plan will be supported by an annually updated work programme, a separate document running in conjunction with the Middleton Green Infrastructure Plan which includes short, medium and long-term projects and details of how they will be delivered. This structure will ensure that new opportunities, funding and delivery mechanisms for green infrastructure projects, which may arise at different times can be included to deliver the plan.

The Plan cannot be delivered overnight and to be successful it requires the support and ownership of all interests including the local authority, government agencies, volunteer and community groups, healthcare organisations, residents, school children, developers, businesses and landowners. A positive approach to increasing the benefits of green infrastructure to our communities involves looking at what we need green spaces to do both now and in the future. We need to ensure that through good management, design and location we have enough of the right types of green infrastructure in the right places and doing all the things we need it to do.

Middleton GI Action Plan draft. August 2011 Page 217 3 Middleton GI Action Plan draft. August 2011 Page 218 4 Chapter 2: What is Green Infrastructure?

Green infrastructure is the ‘natural’ outdoor environment all around us and is part of the life support system of the community. It can include all green spaces and open water in and around our communities from private gardens and street trees, ponds and playing fields to the extensive river valleys and open countryside surrounding our towns. Natural England, the Government’s advisor on the natural environment defines Green Infrastructure as:

Green Infrastructure (GI) is a strategically planned and delivered network of high quality green spaces and other environmental features. It should be designed and managed as a multifunctional resource capable of delivering a wide range of environmental and quality of life benefits for local communities. Green Infrastructure includes parks, open spaces, playing fields, woodlands, allotments and private gardens.

Green infrastructure functions include conserving and enhancing the natural environment, providing wildlife corridors, reducing noise and air pollution, helping communities adapt to climate change by managing water and carbon, providing green routes in and around communities, managing flood risk and providing space for play, quiet relaxation, sport and leisure. . Many of the elements, which make up our green infrastructure and the function it provides are shown in figure 2.1.

An example of a multi functional landscape in Boarshaw Clough: Providing recreation, biodiversity, flood risk management, access, cultural and heritage functions.

Middleton GI Action Plan draft. August 2011 Page 219 5 Figure 2.1 Functions and Components of Green Infrastructure

Middleton GI Action Plan draft. August 2011 Page 220 6 Green infrastructure is therefore not simply concerned with the amount of green spaces that we have but in its quality and ability to perform the environmental services they provide supporting everyday life, our economy and the future well-being of our communities. Access to high quality, well maintained urban green spaces promotes physical activity, positive mental wellbeing and healthy childhood development (CABE 2010)1.

Well located, designed and managed green space and water bodies can bring many benefits to a community and make places attractive to live in and to invest in. Low quality green spaces which are poorly located, badly managed with no clear functions for the community can discourage investment in an area and can attract problems such as anti social behaviour and fly tipping.

Each green space or water body however small can be multi functional, which means that it can perform a number of different roles. These different functions are performed by individual spaces but also as part a larger network of green infrastructure, which can extend well beyond Middleton. For example the fishing lodges in Alkrington Woods Local Nature Reserve (LNR) are important for recreation, wildlife and sustainable drainage but they are also part of the wider network of countryside in the Irk Valley around the woods, which in turn link with the town centre to the east and the open countryside to the north. On a Greater Manchester scale the lodges are part of the flood management system along the Irk Valley, helping to manage flood risk beyond Middleton as part of the wider River Irwell catchment and also form a part of the Irk Valley wildlife corridor. Middleton’s green infrastructure contribution to the wider borough and Greater Manchester is shown below in Figure 2.2.

Figure 2.2 Middleton’s Green Infrastructure contribution to the Manchester City Region.

______1 CABE (2010) Community Green: Using local spaces to tackle inequality and improve health.

Middleton GI Action Plan draft. August 2011 Page 221 7 An introduction to Middleton

Middleton is located south-west of Rochdale and north-east of the city of Manchester. The rural setting to the north and east of the Township bring visual amenity and recreational opportunities while the green valleys of the River Irk and Wince and Whit Brooks penetrate the urban areas close to the town centre providing opportunities for green links out to the wider countryside. There is a diverse range of high quality greenspaces including the Green Flag award winning Truffet Park and the ancient woodlands within Hopwood Woods LNR. Middleton has some important areas of biodiversity with eight Sites of Biological Importance (SBIs) and two Local Nature Reserves (LNRs). The Rochdale Canal to the east of the Township is designated as a Special Area of Conservation and a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) recognising its national and European value for biodiversity. Bowlee Community Park and Alkrington Woods LNR play an important role as a green infrastructure gateway for Heaton Park and surrounding countryside and the city of Manchester along the Irk Valley. These all are an important part of Greater Manchester’s green infrastructure network.

Middleton grew substantially through the industrial revolution with a dense urban core of terraced housing surrounding the town centre. There are also more recent housing and industrial development areas in the urban core and extending out along the river valleys and highway network from the town centre. Middleton today is a predominately residential area of contrasting affluence. Langley for example is a large housing estate of predominately social rented properties with several local centres and community facilities. This estate is currently being regenerated to provide a better mix of housing in terms of type and tenure. Alkrington on the other hand is a relatively affluent area and one of the earliest examples of a ‘garden village’ type layout where open spaces form an integral part of the neighbourhood and its character. Both neighbourhoods have particular GI assets, challenges and opportunities in terms of getting maximum benefit from green infrastructure to support the community and quality of life and place.

Middleton also has a rich heritage including the building’s of Edgar Wood, Alkrington Hall and St Leonard’s Church, a Grade 1 listed building, which has a distinctive wooden steeple built in 1667, one of only three remaining in the country. The Town Centre Heritage Initiative (THI) will enhance and promote some of these important historical assets.

Mills Hill station to the east connects Middleton to the main railway network. Middleton forms a part of the M60 and M62 Motorway corridor and includes junctions to both at Heaton Park and at Hopwood respectively. There are a series of major road routes connecting Middleton with Manchester City Centre, Heywood, Rochdale and Oldham. The Rochdale Canal provides a recreational and commuting route for walkers and cyclists within Middleton and beyond to Rochdale and the South Pennines, Manchester and Oldham and links to the Connect 2 Sustrans Cycle network.

Whist Middleton has substantial advantages of location and is within a generally attractive and accessible countryside setting with areas of good quality functional greenspace networks, there are, in green infrastructure terms, many challenges to be addressed:

x Access to the countryside from parts of the urban area is poor, particularly from Langley and the town centre; x There is a legacy of vacant and underused land largely focused on older industrial areas which detract from opportunities for recreation in parts of the river valley network and Rochdale Canal corridor, such as land around British Vita; x Urban open spaces vary in quality and in some locations do not provide a distinctive, positive character or required public benefits for Middleton and its neighbourhoods;

Middleton GI Action Plan draft. August 2011 Page 222 8 x Parts of Middleton are subject to fluvial and surface water flood risk; x There is a need to improve the physical environment of many of Middleton’s neighbourhoods; x Poor health is an issue in many parts of Middleton; x The town centre has very little greening and is poorly adapted to the affects of climate change; x In addition to areas of poor access to the countryside, there are also a series of ‘barriers’ to movement within some of the main urban greenspace networks including busy A roads and motorways, which discourage use of linear green routes and corridors, particularly to other parts of the borough and beyond.

Addressing many of these challenges has started through regeneration initiatives such as Housing Market Renewal in Langley. Regeneration proposals include creation of a network of green spaces created by developing some poor quality open spaces and improving others. The Local Development Framework, Township Plan and THI have also recognised the need to improve the environment of Middleton but much still needs to be done to ensure that Middleton makes a good first impression and creates lasting benefits through its green infrastructure. Middleton’s green infrastructure and how it relates to Middleton and its community can be clearly seen from the aerial view shown in figure 2.3.

Middleton GI Action Plan draft. August 2011 Page 223 9 Figure 2.3 Middleton’s Green infrastructure from the air.

Middleton GI Action Plan draft. August 2011 Page 224 10 Chapter 3: A Policy Context for Green Infrastructure in Middleton

Green Infrastructure is part of a complex policy mosaic and cuts across a range of objectives at all levels including the North West region and Greater Manchester down to plans for individual neighbourhoods. Through the life of this action plan, it is expected that policy guidance and drivers for green infrastructure plans will have grown and changed and will be much more explicit as new or revised plans, policies and programmes from Government and its agencies, local authorities and major delivery bodies such as health providers, emerge and recognise the importance of green infrastructure in their delivery.

A diagram highlighting the main components of a policy and strategy framework for delivering green infrastructure is shown in Figure 3.1 on page 12. Within this framework it is worth highlighting some key documents which provide strong policy support and guidance for green infrastructure and highlight the importance of green infrastructure to support economic growth, quality of life for communities and a high quality, resilient environment in Middleton, Rochdale borough and Greater Manchester. See appendix, page 43 for further discussion of policy context.

At a local level the Rochdale Borough Renaissance Masterplan recognises the value of the borough’s green infrastructure to growth, regeneration and quality of life in Rochdale borough and the emerging Core Strategy, which is part of the Local Development Framework, includes policies, in particular policy G6 (Enhancing Green infrastructure), which ensure green infrastructure supports local communities, housing and economic development by maximising the functions and services it provides. The Township GI Action Plans will be an important vehicle for targeting, supporting and enabling delivery of key GI actions at all scales to help deliver the borough’s priorities for the physical environment and sustainable development.

Middleton GI Action Plan draft. August 2011 Page 225 11 Figure 3.1 Policy context

Middleton GI Action Plan draft. August 2011 Page 226 12 Chapter 4: What do we want Green Infrastructure in Middleton to do?

Green infrastructure in Middleton must help deliver Middleton’s objectives for economic growth and to make Middleton a better, more attractive and healthier place for residents, workers and visitors both now and in the future. Green infrastructure in Middleton must also provide benefits for the borough and for Greater Manchester where possible. The functions we want green infrastructure in Middleton to perform are to:

Provide a sense of place and positive identity and image for Middleton and the borough of Rochdale

The perception of visitors or potential investors can have a direct impact on tourism and the attraction of a place to live, work and invest in. Green spaces, parks and gardens, the countryside, gateways and corridors all significantly influence perceptions about image and the quality of place and the quality of life it will provide. Middleton has a range of attractive open spaces, parks and countryside including Hopwood Woods Local Nature Reserve (LNR) and Truffet Park but there are also places where the environment is poor through dereliction, neglect or lack of visual interest. Middleton has a particularly strong heritage interest, which will be enhanced by the Townscape Heritage Initiative (THI), improving the conservation area and promoting heritage assets such as St Leonard’s church and Middleton Burial Ground. Middleton has great potential as a place to visit and has ambitious plans for new and improved housing and providing a range of jobs to make it a more attractive place to live and work. Middleton also includes part of the strategic road and motorway network for Greater Manchester and helps to create a first impression for visitors to Rochdale borough. It is therefore important that the Township creates a positive first impression and also a lasting environmental quality with a strong sense of place.

Green Flag award winning Truffet Park, Langley provides a strong sense of place

Middleton GI Action Plan draft. August 2011 Page 227 13 Provide access for all ages and abilities to good quality urban green space and the countryside around Middleton for recreation and tourism

Good quality urban green spaces, parks, gardens, recreational facilities and countryside are major assets for promoting a town for tourism and recreation and activities. The market for tourism is diverse, ranging from leisurely pursuits to more active recreation such as cycling and sports. These assets are also important to current residents and people who may be considering Middleton as a place to live. It is also important to ensure that people of all ages and abilities can enjoy as wide a range of activities and experiences as possible whether they are visiting or living in Middleton. The school grounds, parks, woodlands and countryside in and around Middleton also provide a diverse ‘outdoor classroom’ resource where children of all ages can experience and learn about wildlife, local food and healthy eating, climate change and local heritage.

The countryside in and around Middleton contains a wealth of wildlife and built heritage with attractive wooded landscapes stretching into the heart of the town centre such as Alkrington Woods LNR. Access to the countryside from some neighbourhoods is poor and there are environmental problems such as fly tipping and dereliction, which need to be tackled at key gateways to the countryside. Access from the town centre to the open spaces and woodlands is blocked or hindered in several cases by busy roads with inadequate crossings or unwelcoming gateways and entrances.

Hopwood Woods LNR provides an opportunity for healthy living and countryside recreation close to the urban area.

Middleton GI Action Plan draft. August 2011 Page 228 14 Encourage walking and cycling for everyday journeys, healthy lifestyles and well being

Access to good quality green spaces within urban areas and to the countryside is important to the ability of local people to lead a healthy and active life. Visiting these green spaces can give a range of benefits for mental health, tackling child and adult obesity and helping reduce the incidence of respiratory and cardiac problems. Making walking and cycling a more attractive alternative to using the car involves creating greener streets and an open space network with clearly identified routes for recreation, routes to school, shops and services and employment. These should provide a safe and welcoming environment where people feel confident. The streetscape and open spaces of Middleton have great potential to provide a sustainable movement network but at present there are some barriers to movement and a lack of defined urban green routes.

Help manage flood risk and improve water quality

Flooding can cause significant harm to communities through damage to property, danger to the public and disruption to travel and the local economy. Flood risk in the Township can arise from watercourses and a range of other sources including drainage from the nearby South Pennine uplands, surface water run off and the local sewer system. As the climate changes there is a greater likelihood of more extreme rainfall events which may be more frequent and also more damaging.

An indication of the most significant areas of potential flood risk in Middleton are shown at figure 4.1, page 16. The Strategic Flood Risk Assessment for Rochdale borough (2009) identified areas of fluvial risk based on the rivers network and also an indication of surface water flood risk. A Greater Manchester Surface Water Management Plan will be published in 2012 which will identify surface water flood risk in more detail. A local Flood Risk Management Strategy for Rochdale borough will be produced by 2015 setting out objectives and priorities for flood risk management and how it is proposed to deliver them.

The River Irk and its tributaries such as the Whit and Wince brooks are part of the wider River Irwell catchment and part of an extensive network of watercourses in Greater Manchester. In Middleton there are flood risks from these watercourses but they can also help reduce the impact of flooding both locally and throughout Greater Manchester. It is important to help maintain and enhance the value of these watercourses for flood risk management by avoiding development activities, which may increase flood risk and ensuring that new development helps maintain or improve flood risk management. It is also important to support actions, including opportunities for working with the Environment Agency, United Utilities and developers that could improve the ability to manage flood risk such as de-culverting water courses, improvements to the sewer network, creating or enhancing Sustainable Urban Drainage and appropriate land management.

The Water Framework Directive (WFD) requires all EU countries to manage and maintain water quality to a consistent standard which includes achieving a ‘good’ status for all water bodies by 2015. This requires actions to ensure improvements in water quality or to stop decline as necessary and includes the effect of pollution from discharges, groundwater and roads, maintaining and improving biodiversity, and promoting recreation and enjoyment of the water environment in a sustainable way. The Environment Agency have produced River Basin Management Plans to help deliver WFD requirements. Green Infrastructure is recognised as a major opportunity to help maintain and improve both the quality of water courses through intercepting pollutants and also to achieve sustainable management of the water environment including river valleys. The GI Action Plan will provide a basis for identifying partnership opportunities

Middleton GI Action Plan draft. August 2011 Page 229 15 for delivering the River Basin Management Plan and a good quality water environment in Middleton.

Figure 4.1 Principal watercourses and indicative areas of significant flood risk

Middleton GI Action Plan draft. August 2011 Page 230 16 Support biodiversity sites and networks

Two of the borough’s three LNRs are in Middleton. These are Alkrington Woods and Hopwood Woods, the latter including areas of ancient woodland. There are also currently fourteen areas designated as Sites of Biological Importance (SBIs), particularly focused along Trub Brook and in the lower Irk Valley. The Rochdale Canal, in the east of the township, is further designated as a Special Area of Conservation (SAC) and a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). All of these designations recognise their value to the biodiversity of Rochdale Borough and Greater Manchester and they form part of the Greater Manchester biodiversity network helping to deliver the Greater Manchester Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) (2009) and the emerging Rochdale BAP. They also provide a collection of assets providing local communities with access to high quality biodiversity for enjoyment and education. These watercourses and valleys can be viewed as forming a natural corridors which include the woodlands, open water and open grasslands that host a range of species and habitats. These areas are shown on figure 4.2, page 18. Urban Middleton has many green spaces with existing biodiversity value including public open spaces, small urban woodlands and mature residential gardens but many have limited value due to a lack of features or management that would encourage biodiversity. Greener streets and urban areas that people want to use and live, work, learn and play are brought to life by wildlife interest through the seasons. Further opportunities to deliver the Rochdale and Greater Manchester BAPs and to improve opportunities for access to and enjoyment of the natural environment will be included in the GI Action Plan.

Wince Brook, a window on wildlife

Middleton GI Action Plan draft. August 2011 Page 231 17 Figure 4.2 Middleton’s Biodiversity Network

Middleton GI Action Plan draft. August 2011 Page 232 18 Providing food and fuel for the community

The urban environment can provide valuable growing space for fruit and vegetables as highlighted in such initiatives as Incredible Edible Todmorden. In addition to private gardens, there are opportunities for local food growing within schools, public open spaces and along streets, which can also add character to the local environment as well as greening. Growing a wide range of fruit, vegetables and herbs in these places can also provide opportunities for education, healthy eating and community enterprise as well as reducing ‘food miles’ and transport costs. There may also be potential for some of the woodlands, farmland and urban spaces within Middleton Township to provide biomass for woodfuel and an objective of the GI Plan will be to identify what potential exists and how that may be realised through local or Greater Manchester woodfuel and biomass growing and usage.

Help Middleton adapt to climate change

The changing climate will bring challenges to life in Middleton, as extreme weather events such as heavy rainfall become more likely and temperatures increase, particularly within the more urban neighbourhoods the town centre and employment areas. Increasing the area of permeable surfaces, which allow rainfall to drain into the ground and increasing vegetation, such as green roofs and street trees help to delay runoff and absorb water from increased rainfall. The urban heat island effect is caused by large areas of hard surfaces such as concrete or tarmac storing the sun’s heat and releasing it overnight, increasing the temperature significantly higher than the surrounding countryside. This has been known for nearly two hundred years but it is now becoming more of an issue as urban centres grow and the climate changes. Increased planting, particularly of trees, within built up areas reflect the heat of the sun and cool the air very effectively. High quality appropriate green infrastructure will improve the Township’s ability to reduce the impact of these changes and improve the ability to conserve natural resources, reduce CO2 emissions, reduce flood risk and provide cooling and shade. As the green infrastructure matures the effectiveness and benefits increase. This will make Middleton more resilient to future climate change and a safer, more comfortable environment to live in, work in and visit.

Middleton GI Action Plan draft. August 2011 Page 233 19 Middleton GI Action Plan draft. August 2011 Page 234 20 Chapter 5: Green Infrastructure in Middleton by area

Middleton has a diverse character and each area or neighbourhood has its own specific challenges and opportunities for green infrastructure. These ‘character areas’ provide a focus for better understanding need and opportunity and developing effective local actions. Figure 5.1 below illustrates the character areas in Middleton. These character areas enable residents and service providers to understand and influence how actions in their area can contribute to local quality of life and also help to deliver bigger, more strategic actions such as improving the access within and around the town centre to the wider countryside. The seven character areas are described in detail on pages 22 to 28.

Figure 5.1: Middleton Character Areas

Middleton GI Action Plan draft. August 2011 Page 235 21 Figure 5.2 Character Area 1: Hopwood

Map to follow for draft consultation version.

Predominantly a mixed agricultural land use area with significant historic woodlands and biodiversity interest including three SBIs, Hopwood Woods LNR and associated hall and areas of ancient woodland. Bounded by the M62, the Calder Vale rail line and to the west and south-east by road corridors the area includes two major educational facilities at Hopwood Hall College and St Anne’s Academy. Access is generally good, particularly through the woodland areas, however there is no public access across Manchester Golf Course in the north east. There are links to Tandle Hill Country Park and the Pennine Way via the Rochdale Canal, National Cycle Route 66. Trub Brook, presents no major fluvial flood risk within the character area, however changes to the management of the watercourse could affect flood risk within the town centre downstream.

Main Issues & Opportunities x Improve the links between and within the countryside and the urban area. x Improve links with the Rochdale Canal and Connect 2 cycle route x Promote and support good woodland and biodiversity management in the Hopwood Woods LNR and Rochdale Canal corridor. x Ensure the appropriate management of Trub Brook to reduce flood risk down stream.

(Photos: Hopwood Woods, Rochdale Canal)

Middleton GI Action Plan draft. August 2011 Page 236 22 Figure 5.3 Character Area 2: Bowlee and Rhodes

Map to follow for draft consultation version.

A largely mixed agricultural area surrounding the four village settlements of Bowlee, Rhodes, Rhodes Green and Birch. It is bounded to the north and south by motorways and Manchester Old Road and Heywood Old Road run east and south respectively. Significant formal open spaces include the Bowlee Community Park and the North Manchester Golf Club although the latter is largely inaccessible to the general public. The west of the area provides good views to the rest of Middleton. A SBI is located near to Bradley Hall Farm and other areas of biodiversity value include woodland at Bowlee Community Park. There are limited active transport routes within this area. Fluvial flood risk issues occur around Whittle Brook and the River Irk near Rhodes.

Main Issues & Opportunities x Improve access and promotion of recreational and green travel opportunities to establish a link between the countryside and key communities including Langley and central Middleton and to further destinations such as Heaton Park, Hopwood Hall and Alkrington Woods x Identify opportunities to create an extended and better connected biodiversity corridor. x Identify opportunities for landscape enhancement through activities such as woodland and hedgerow planting and management x Explore opportunities for biomass planting

(Photos: Bowlee, Views to Manchester, Rhodes Green

Middleton GI Action Plan draft. August 2011 Page 237 23 Figure 5.4 Character Area 3: Langley

Map to follow for draft consultation version.

A large housing estate of predominately social rented properties with several local centres and community facilities. It is surrounded on three sides by open countryside with close links to Bowlee Community Park to the west. The estate includes Green Flag award winning Truffet Park. The Langley Greenspace Strategy (LGS) (2005) aims to create a high quality green space network with linkages to open space beyond the urban area. There is a significant amount of open space but much of it is characterless mown ‘green desert’ with limited green infrastructure functions and some evidence of poor drainage. There are also significant areas of vacant and underused land. Biodiversity value is relatively low, although the high quality mature street trees along the radial routes within the estate provide some wildlife corridor functions. There is a poor network of active transport routes within the urban area and out to the countryside.

Main Issues & Opportunities x Improve the access between and within the urban area, particularly to Bowlee Community Park and the wider countryside, supported by the LGS. x Creating a high quality, multi-functional green space network, which provide more functions and a more distinctive character for the estate. x Developing a comprehensive approach to vacant and underused land. x Identify opportunities for green infrastructure to support flood risk management

(Photos: Truffet Park, Verges, Green desert)

Middleton GI Action Plan draft. August 2011 Page 238 24 Figure 5.5 Character Area 4: Hollins

Map to follow for draft consultation version.

A residential area with large mature gardens, which lies between the main road corridors of Hollin Lane and Rochdale Road and contains a number of localised open spaces and wide verges, which are largely characterless mown ‘green desert’ with limited green infrastructure functions. The woodlands immediately north of this character area are important for biodiversity and the continuation of Hopwood Woods LNR along side Tintern Road offers an opportunity for improvement within the green corridor. There are limited existing active transport links into the town centre, to Hopwood Woods LNR and to the Rochdale Canal corridor.

Main Issues & Opportunities x Improve the access within the urban area and to countryside destinations including Hopwood Woods, Rochdale Canal and Bowlee Community Park. x Establish a local GI network and improve the number of green infrastructure functions performed by the existing green spaces in Hollins including urban wildlife corridors and enhanced green routes. x Enhance and improve the green corridor between Hopwood Woods LNR and Tintern Road, particularly for biodiversity and access.

(Photos: Green desert, Tintern Road space, Verges?

Middleton GI Action Plan draft. August 2011 Page 239 25 Figure 5.6 Character Area 5: Town Centre and Heritage Area

Map to follow for draft consultation version.

Middleton town centre is characterised by a rich cultural heritage and has seen major investment in recent years including a new bus station and Middleton Arena. Future initiatives include Townscape Heritage Initiative (THI) and the Middleton Spatial Masterplan (2011). The area has very little greening with a significant area of hard surfacing. The only significant publicly accessible open spaces are Limefield Park, Jubilee Park and the Old Burial Ground. Three river valleys and Alkrington Woods LNR penetrate the urban area close to the town centre although accessibility connecting these green spaces is currently disjointed. There are areas of flood risk particularly to the east, along Whit Brook and in the south along Wince Brook.

Main Issues & Opportunities x Improve the access within and through the area including connections to the river valleys and wider countryside. x Enhance the number of functions performed by the existing green spaces and the links between them and ensure that improvements support Middleton’s heritage offer. x Identify opportunities to ensure that the town centre is better adapted to the effects of climate change and maximises opportunities for the management of flood risk.

(Photos: Jubilee Park & Library, Kerrie S Long St photo, Tesco?)

Middleton GI Action Plan draft. August 2011 Page 240 26 Figure 5.7 Character Area 6: East Middleton and Boarshaw

Map to follow for draft consultation version.

This is a mixed use area with open land to the north and the Calder Vale rail line to the east. The Rochdale Canal (National Cycle Route 66) runs through the north east of this area providing biodiversity, flood risk management and green travel and recreational functions. The Irk Valley and the Oldham Road corridor forms an older industrial corridor with a significant area of vacant and underused land, particularly land behind British Vita. This area represents an opportunity for a comprehensive approach to green infrastructure improvements helping Middleton’s wider regeneration. There are a number of localised open spaces which have limited functions, although there are two SBIs to the north, which are important for biodiversity. Active transport links could be improved by exploiting connections to the Rochdale Canal and Mills Hill railway station. Both the River Irk and Whit Brook have localised flooding problems.

Main Issues & Opportunities x Improve access between and within the urban area and out to the countryside via the river valleys and Rochdale Canal corridor. x Through area regeneration and facilitating appropriate development opportunities, develop a comprehensive approach to maximising GI benefits from vacant and underused land. x Improve the number of functions performed by the existing green spaces, particularly maximising opportunities for the management of flood risk, biodiversity and recreation and green travel on foot or cycle. x Improve landscape character in key corridors including the road and railway corridors, river valleys and Rochdale Canal

(Photos: Canal, British Vita, green desert?)

Middleton GI Action Plan draft. August 2011 Page 241 27 Figure 5.8 Character Area 7: Alkrington

Map to follow for draft consultation version.

A largely residential suburb with large mature gardens, separated from neighbouring Manchester by the M60 motorway. The residential areas generally have wide green verges and large areas of mown ‘green desert’ with limited green infrastructure functions, although mature street trees along the main transport routes provide some wildlife corridor functions and character for the street scene. Alkrington Woods LNR, along the River Irk is a popular destination and important for biodiversity with a good access network but signposting of routes within the residential core is poor. Wince Brook Valley to the east forms a wildlife corridor with limited access close to the town centre. The River Irk and Wince Brook are both liable to flooding.

Main Issues and Opportunities x Ensuring that the key landscape features of Alkrington Woods LNR and Wince Brook are protected and enhanced, particularly in terms of access and biodiversity. x Improve the number of functions performed by the existing green spaces, particularly maximising opportunities for the management of flood risk, promoting urban wildlife and recreational opportunities and enhancing links between these spaces. x Maximising the biodiversity value of existing gardens with the residential area.

(Photos: Irk, Woods, verges etc?)

Middleton GI Action Plan draft. August 2011 Page 242 28 Chapter 6: Green Infrastructure Objectives for Middleton

We can see from the policy framework outlined in this plan (Page 12) that delivering good green infrastructure in Middleton has to bring many benefits and contribute to positive change for local people and businesses and also for Rochdale Borough and Greater Manchester. What we want green infrastructure in Middleton to do cuts across many traditional areas of activity. The multi-functional nature of green infrastructure enables it to support daily life in Middleton by improving its attractiveness as a place to live, work and invest in and helping to ensure that it is resilient to flooding and the future impacts of climate change.

The priority objectives for green infrastructure, which this Action Plan will deliver seeks to ensure that we have the right green infrastructure in the right place and that it delivers the range of functions that Middleton requires. These objectives aim to ensure that land managers, developers and all relevant delivery partnerships and organisations invest in and deliver high quality green infrastructure so that it achieves its cross cutting public benefits. Well designed and well managed green spaces bring benefits for social cohesion, recreation and well being, increasing usage and discouraging anti-social activity.

Our green infrastructure objectives are:

Growing Middleton High quality green infrastructure will support economic growth and the regeneration of the town centre, neighbourhoods and employment areas, enabling Middleton to grow in a sustainable way. A high quality environment will support the Township’s aspirations for economic growth, regeneration and health and wellbeing.

Active, Healthy Middleton More active lifestyles will help to tackle the health priorities of obesity, coronary heart disease and respiratory illnesses in Middleton. We need to encourage physical activity in a safe and welcoming environment for all ages and abilities to promote healthy lifestyles and well-being. Encouraging local food growing will help to promote better eating habits, increase gardening skills and provide opportunities for community gardening, food sharing and trading projects. Locally grown food also reduces the need for long journeys and the reliance on fossil fuels.

Local food growing on an allotment

Middleton GI Action Plan draft. August 2011 Page 243 29 Accessible Middleton Encouraging walking and cycling for leisure and as a daily journey to school, work, shops and services will tackle health priorities as well as reducing pollution and greenhouse gas production. Greener streets, accessible urban green routes and better signage to important destinations in Middleton and links to the surrounding countryside and other destinations will provide a better and more attractive environment for active travelling. Ideas such as Pennine Edge Forest’s (PEF) Natural Signposting Initiative and Red Rose Forest’s (RRF) Green Streets project, which use landscape features, trees and other planting as landmarks will enable people to find their way around and follow the greenways network.

Living Middleton Improving access to Middleton’s important woodlands and open spaces for education and enjoyment will support learning, natural play and encourage better use and appreciation of urban green space and the countryside. Low diversity ‘green deserts’ of mown grass will be improved by introducing a more diverse flora and a more varied mowing pattern, which will provide a variety of interest and increase the functions they provide. Improving urban wildlife corridors will add interest and environmental quality to our neighbourhoods and help to protect and enhance wildlife habitats and species, which are important for local and regional biodiversity. These areas also provide a window on local wildlife to be enjoyed by residents, school children, workers and visitors.

Resilient Middleton Green infrastructure will help to manage and reduce flood risk from the River Irk, Whit Brook and surface water to benefit communities and businesses within and downstream of Middleton. Trees, woodland and other green assets in the Township will help it to adapt to the impacts of climate change and may provide opportunities for sustainable wood fuel or biomass in the future. Green Infrastructure will also help Middleton to meet the requirements of the European Water Framework Directive in ensuring that local watercourses and the water environment supports good water quality, biodiversity, public enjoyment and helps to reduce the impacts of pollution

Visit Middleton High quality public realm and landscapes will make a positive first impression and lasting impact on visitors to Middleton. Distinctive gateways and corridors, which enhance views of attractive countryside and the Township’s strong architectural heritage, will project a positive image of Middleton. Improved access, signage and interpretation to Alkrington Woods Local Nature Reserve (LNR) from the town centre, particularly from the bus station along with enhancing and highlighting heritage routes, including buildings by Middleton Architect Edgar Wood, Tonge Hall and Jubilee Park, will enable the Township to promote a stronger visitor package.

Jubilee Park and St Leonard’s Church Tower

Distinctive Middleton By delivering the above themes, Middleton has the opportunity to make its green infrastructure work harder to create a distinctive and sustainable settlement that will achieve the Township’s vision for growth, regeneration, well-being and the quality of life for its residents, workers and visitors. Middleton will become a community and township with a stronger sense of place and where the value of its green infrastructure is maximised.

Middleton GI Action Plan draft. August 2011 Page 244 30 Our Strategic Projects

Green Infrastructure will be delivered through a range of actions both large and small over the period of this Action Plan to 2026. The Action Plan has a long term vision that accommodates proposals which will be delivered at a later date as opportunities emerge and also ‘quick wins’ where there is an opportunity to do something more immediately. The Action Plan is based on a series of long term strategic projects, so they will be delivered incrementally through the life of the Green Infrastructure Action Plan linked to development opportunities, area based regeneration and opportunities for external funding. Smaller scale activities may be centred on how the Council and others who manage public and private green spaces can contribute to Middleton’s green infrastructure needs.

Middleton has seen a significant amount of investment in recent years increasing its vibrant and revitalised image, particularly the successful Middleton Arena and other high quality facilities of Boroughwide significance and beyond. The Townscape Heritage Initiative (THI) and Middleton Spatial Masterplan (2011) will be key delivery vehicles in shaping the Township’s future image and economic development.

All of Middleton’s neighbourhoods have a part to play in delivering these projects. The annual work programme which supports the Middleton Green Infrastructure Plan provides an opportunity to check progress, update information about Middleton’s environment and issues affecting it and to respond to new opportunities and challenges as they emerge. The four strategic delivery projects along with their key proposals are outlined below.

Middleton GI Action Plan draft. August 2011 Page 245 31 1. Middleton Greenways Network

As part of Middleton’s continued regeneration and growth it is important to improve accessibility both for the community and for visitors, focussing on its key heritage assets and providing wider links to the countryside and services in surrounding urban areas.

The valleys of Wince Brook and the River Irk extend into the heart of the town centre from the surrounding countryside. However, routes through and around the town centre are disjointed which makes taking advantage of the river valleys a challenge. This strategic project represents an opportunity to open up routes to access Middleton’s surrounding countryside and wider active transport networks such as National Cycle Route 66 from the town centre. It will enable the urban core to function as a green transport hub connecting with other strategic green routes such as the Rochdale Canal, National Cycle Route and links into the Roch Valley network and further destinations such as Heaton Park and the South Rochdale Forest Trail.

Many of the neighbourhoods surrounding the town centre are close to high quality countryside and natural open space, containing some important areas of attractive open landscapes, biodiversity and ancient woodlands. There is an existing access network within this countryside however links from the Town centre and surrounding neighbourhoods could be considerably improved, particularly in Langley, which was highlighted in the Langley Greenspace Strategy (2005) (LGS).

The Middleton Greenways Network will increase Middleton’s visitor offer by linking the Township’s rich architectural heritage with its attractive natural landscape, contributing to further economic growth and prosperity. Routes will also link with other more established routes such as the Hall to Hall trail.

This project will provide: x Increased opportunities for physical activity by encouraging more active transport methods to improve the health and wellbeing of the community. x Improve the visitor offer providing active transport links between key heritage assets, leisure and play facilities, high quality open spaces and countryside. x Support and develop the proposals set out in the Middleton Town Centre Spatial Masterplan, the THI and the LGS to build on recent improvements to the town centre which will encourage economic growth and prosperity. x A high quality network of active transport routes, which connects the town centre, neighbourhoods and services with the surrounding countryside, the rest of the borough and beyond. x A distinctive leisure route within the network connecting the main landscape and heritage destinations of Hopwood Woods LNR, Bowlee Community Park, Alkrington Woods LNR and the town centre heritage area. x Increased opportunities to access facilities on foot or by cycling along traffic free greenways, including promotion of these routes, clear signposting and improved gateways to routes and open spaces. x A framework for new development opportunities to ensure that appropriate green infrastructure and linkages are in place.

Key proposals for delivering Middleton Greenways Network:

x New development opportunities: ensuring that appropriate green infrastructure and linkages are in place within any new proposals. x Middleton Greenway: a green pedestrian and cycle route linking Jubilee Park via Long Street through to Alkrington Woods LNR. This proposal is

Middleton GI Action Plan draft. August 2011 Page 246 32 highlighted in the Town Centre Spatial Masterplan. x Accessible River Valleys: utilising the river valley’s that extend into the urban core as a framework for an active transport network. x Heritage and leisure trails: develop a series of trails in conjunction with THI proposals. Clear, attractive routes will be created between the main heritage and leisure assets within the town centre with improved signage and interpretation. x Signposting routes: increase and improve existing active transport links using good practice established in the Pennine Edge Forest Natural Signposting Initiative and Red Rose Forest’s (RRF) Green Streets project x Improve and enhance the Greenways Network: identify critical blockages within the network ensuring that appropriate measures are taken to link or improve the greenway, with new routes created where possible. x Langley Greenspace: support and develop the major green routes proposed in the LGS, particularly improving east-west linkages. x Leisure Trails: A distinctive route within the main network, which is promoted and signposted to link the main greenspace and heritage destinations of the Township. x Routes to Play: Establish better routes to play, sports and recreation facilities to encourage active play and healthy lifestyles. x Priority commuter routes: linking Langely, Hollin, East Middleton, Alkrington and Rhodes to the town centre and linking to Mills Hill Station.

This Strategic project will use the good practice established in the PEF Natural Signposting initiative and RRF’s Green Streets project. Delivering Middleton Greenways Network is a long term project involving a wide range of actions large and small. It will be delivered through contributions through new development opportunities, environmental regeneration programmes, highway management and rights of way improvements carried out by the Council and a number of smaller actions, which may be linked to greenspace management and volunteering activities, with the co-operation and involvement of delivery partners and environmental agencies. An illustration of the Greenways network is shown in figure 6.1, page 34.

The lodges at Alkrington Woods LNR are part of the Greenways Network close to Middleton town centre

Middleton GI Action Plan draft. August 2011 Page 247 33 Figure 6.1 Middleton’s Greenways Network and countryside

Middleton GI Action Plan draft. August 2011 Page 248 34 2. Growing, Greener Neighbourhoods in Middleton

This strategic project will improve the range of services, products and functions that are provided by the green infrastructure in Middleton so that it is better able to meet the needs of the community. A network of new and existing multi functional green spaces will be managed for a variety of uses. The greener neighbourhoods network will include local food growing, outdoor classroom areas, natural play, quiet relaxation, flood risk management, accessible urban wildlife and biodiversity, employment opportunities and climate change adaptation. Public spaces, private gardens, allotments and employment sites are all part of Middleton’s greener neighbourhoods and all have a part to play in increasing functions and benefits to the Township’s community.

This network of green spaces will be linked by the Middleton Greenways Project and will form ‘stepping stones’ to the wider countryside using the principles of the PEF Natural Signposting approach. Each neighbourhood within Middleton will be able to define their distinctive character by such ideas as the different use of green space, verge planting and signature trees. The existing network of green spaces will be enhanced and new spaces created through development and regeneration projects according to the community’s priorities.

This project will provide:

x A network of high quality, multi-functional green spaces and green infrastructure assets, helping Middleton to better adapt to the effects of climate change, create distinctive neighbourhoods and flood risk management. x Local food and fuel growing initiatives will promote healthy eating, gardening skills and reduce carbon emissions x Increased opportunities for enjoyment of open spaces, physical activity, natural play and wellbeing which will encourage healthy lifestyles. x Protection and enhancement of biodiversity as well as creating and protecting wildlife corridors helping to deliver Greater Manchester Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) (2009) and the emerging Rochdale BAP priorities. x Improved woodlands both public and privately owned, opportunities for woodland management training and also investigate ways of stimulating the green economy. x Improve flood risk management by working with the Environment Agency (EA) to explore river corridor management opportunities. x Guidance and evidence to support and inform development opportunities to ensure that appropriate green infrastructure is provided.

Key Proposals for Growing Green Neighbourhoods:

x New development opportunities: ensuring that appropriate green infrastructure is provided through new proposals. x Develop a local food growing initiative: To identify opportunities to develop and support growing local food produce within managed public spaces and facilities, involving the Council, schools, the community and businesses. x Increase greening: maximise opportunities for tree planting, green walls and roofs, sustainable flood risk management to help conserve natural resources and help communities adapt to climate change, particularly within urban centres to address the urban heat island effect. x Create distinctive neighbourhoods: develop locally distinctive character of

Middleton GI Action Plan draft. August 2011 Page 249 35 neighbourhoods by using things such as signature trees, planting and enhancing local heritage and landscape features. x Develop an urban wildlife project: initiative to encourage and promote wildlife gardening and management of public spaces to create habitat and increase biodiversity and opportunities for wildlife corridors. x Enhance the natural environment: biodiversity, woodland and landscape features will be protected and enhanced particularly areas within and surrounding designated sites such as LNRs and SBIs and creating opportunities for wildlife corridors and new woodland planting. x Enhance urban woodlands: improved woodland management in partnership with landowners and the Forestry Commission and the Forestry Stewardship Council. Identify opportunities for wood fuel and biomass through woodland management and sites for planting short rotation coppice. x Develop flood risk management opportunities: working with partners including the EA to identify opportunities for improving flood risk management along the river and stream valleys. Assess all greenspace to maximise their contribution to sustainable urban drainage and surface water flood risk management. x Areas for play: Improved fixed and natural play areas, linked by the Middleton Greenways Network to encourage active play and healthy lifestyles. x Provisional improvements to derelict and fallow land: use of wildflowers and temporary treatments to provide GI value to cleared development plots and managing expectations of the community in its final delivery. x Develop educational opportunities: maximising the education and training available from green infrastructure improvements and accessing local wildlife. Initiatives such as the Forest Schools Programme and the PEF Schools Arboretum will help deliver this proposal.

Higher Boarshaw Lodges form part of a sustainable drainage system and provide habitat for wildlife within the neighbourhood.

Middleton GI Action Plan draft. August 2011 Page 250 36 3. Middleton’s Countryside

Surrounding Middleton’s neighbourhoods there are significant areas of accessible local countryside but there are also landscapes not readily accessible to the public such as Manchester Golf Course and some agricultural land which nevertheless has important GI functions including flood risk management, biodiversity and landscape quality and character. Improving the quality and green infrastructure functions provided by these landscapes is vital to enable Middleton to become more resilient to climate change, managing flood risk and becoming more sustainable. This project will develop ways of working in partnership with private landowners and other stakeholder groups, which manage the land to improve woodland management, increase planting and improve biodiversity and management of river valleys. Initiatives to extend good biodiversity management and planting within areas adjacent to ancient woodlands, LNRs and SBIs could enhance and increase biodiversity as well as increasing wildlife corridors between sites.

Enhancing key destinations within Middleton’s countryside, including Hopwood Woods LNR, Bowlee Community Park and Alkrington Woods LNR is also a priority within this strategic project and links with the proposals within the Middleton Greenways Project. Enhancing these areas will improve their popularity as recreational destinations for tourists as well as for the local community.

This strategic project will also investigate ways of developing initiatives that could provide biomass such as wood waste and willow coppice and harvesting wood fuel for the community. Community woodland management schemes and planting sites for biomass could also provide a resource for education and training within the green economy as well as locally grown fuel.

This project will provide:

x Develop partnerships with private landowners and other stakeholders to help maintain and improve green infrastructure functions on land not readily accessible to the public. x Improve woodland cover and quality within the rural areas, green spaces and river valleys. x Increased biodiversity within the rural areas of Middleton. x Improvements to facilities and information at and about key destinations to increase their tourism and leisure potential. x Opportunities for developing the green economy by identifying areas suitable for biomass and wood fuel production. x Opportunities for schools and training providers to more easily access high quality heritage and landscape assets as educational resources and link with the green economy.

Key Proposals for Middleton’s Countryside:

x Enhance the natural environment: Working in partnership with landowners, the Forestry Commission, Natural England, Environment Agency and the Forestry Stewardship Council, biodiversity, woodland and landscape features will be protected and enhanced particularly areas in surrounding designated sites such as SBIs and creating opportunities for wildlife corridors and new woodland planting. x Enhancing woodlands: improved woodland management in partnership with

Middleton GI Action Plan draft. August 2011 Page 251 37 landowners, Forestry Commission and the Forestry Stewardship Council. x Green Economy: Identify opportunities for wood fuel and biomass through woodland management and plantation sites. x Environmental education: Working with schools and training providers to develop opportunities for engaging with Middleton’s landscape and heritage for education and as a link to the green economy. x Destinations: Improvements to facilities at Hopwood Woods, Bowlee Community Park and Alkrington Woods to increase their tourism and leisure potential. x Climate Change initiative: Maximising any funds which may become available in the future for tree planting (for both carbon dioxide absorption and biomass) as a way of offsetting carbon emissions from buildings.

An illustration of Middleton’s countryside is shown in figure 6.1, page 34.

Hopwood Woods LNR an important tourism destination in Middleton’s countryside

Middleton GI Action Plan draft. August 2011 Page 252 38 4. Mills Hill to Middleton Town Centre Corridor

The main Oldham Road and the River Irk Valley in east Middleton form a corridor which is a strategically important transport link serving the Township and the borough. Running between Mills Hill Railway Station and the town centre it is largely an industrial corridor in character with a mixture of older terrace housing and other employment uses.

The corridor contains a large amount of vacant and underused land, particularly along the River Irk, which represents an opportunity for the future regeneration of east Middleton in promoting sustainable development, in delivering new housing, employment and incorporating green infrastructure as a mechanism to improve environmental quality to benefit the local area and the wider corridor extending to central Middleton.

This area is identified in the emerging Core Strategy as an economic growth corridor and as a main gateway to Middleton it is vital that image of the area is positive and reinforces the regeneration already carried out in Middleton. This strategic project will focus on improvements to the environmental quality of the area by increasing greening along the road and river valley and improving the public realm, which is currently poor. This improved high quality environment will enhance and support investment opportunities.

The River Irk rises close to east Middleton and flows through the township into Manchester where it joins the river Irwell in the city centre. For east Middleton and the Township as a whole it is a key feature to help support it’s continued regeneration by utilising its recreational, transport and biodiversity potential. The river provides essential green infrastructure within east Middleton and it is vital that any development and management close to it investigates its flood risk management potential both to Middleton town centre and further downstream.

With a high proportion of the workforce travelling outside Middleton for work, particularly to Manchester, access improvements to Mills Hill Railway Station and facilities for active transport are a priority e.g. bike storage. The corridor could provide important active transport linkages particularly along the river valley to local services, town centres, the countryside and further destinations. This project links with the Middleton Greenways Network and Growing Greener Neighbourhoods in Middleton.

This project will provide:

x A framework for improvements to green infrastructure as part of any development proposals to ensure that actions to support and deliver climate change adaptation, flood risk management, access and biodiversity are embedded in design and proposals as they come forward. x Environmental improvements to the corridor providing additional greening. x A comprehensive approach to vacant and underused land. x New active transport routes between Mills Hill Railway Station and Middleton Town Centre, which link to National Cycle Route 66 and the wider Roch Valley network, and improvements to facilities at the station.

Key Proposals for East Middleton Investment Corridor:

x Greening the road corridor: maximise opportunities for tree planting, green walls and roofs as part of any new development proposals. x Utilising the River Irk: ensuring that green infrastructure functions are maximised through any development opportunities and partnership working with other organisations such as the Environment Agency, including

Middleton GI Action Plan draft. August 2011 Page 253 39 appropriate flood risk management. x Developing a comprehensive approach to vacant and underused land: utilising opportunities such land behind British Vita to promote a broad range of regeneration initiatives, including green infrastructure improvements. x Identify alternative active transport routes, including using the Irk Valley as a route into the town centre. x Improving access to Mills Hill station: allowing commuters to access the wider Greenways Network for access to employment and services. x Provisional improvements to derelict and fallow land: use of wildflowers and temporary treatments to provide GI value to cleared development plots and managing expectations of the community in its final delivery.

An illustration of the Mills Hill to Middleton Town Centre Corridor is shown in figure 6.2, on the next page.

Vacant land provides an opportunity to increase and enhance green infrastructure

Figure 6.2 Mills Hill to Town Centre Corridor

Map to follow for draft consultation version.

Middleton GI Action Plan draft. August 2011 Page 254 40 Chapter 7: Key Partnerships for Delivery

Delivering the plan is not the responsibility of one single organisation or individual. For example over the life of the plan actions will be delivered by: y Individuals in how they manage their private space, how they chose to be involved in improving and using their local environment; y Developers and land managers by how they design and manage land and buildings based on green infrastructure need and opportunity; y Local businesses and service providers also have a delivery role in how they promote and use Middleton’s environment as an asset for health, well being and sustainable economic growth; y Community organisations and the voluntary sector also have an important role in delivery of the plan.

Funding streams are likely to change frequently through the life of the action plan in terms of their scope, criteria and availability. Funding opportunities relating to specific actions will be included in the annual work programme, which can be more easily kept up to date.

Middleton Township will have a key role in ensuring appropriate political and community support for projects to be delivered so that funding opportunities can be pursued with confidence and opportunities for delivery are maintained and strengthened through the Township Plan and its delivery structures for example those relating to health and well being, physical regeneration and quality of place.

In addition to the central role of Middleton Township, there are a number of established delivery partnerships and bodies which will be central to ensuring that funding opportunities for green infrastructure projects are maximised and that key projects are developed and delivered effectively and with maximum value for Middleton and as appropriate the wider borough and in Greater Manchester. These include: y Town Centre Heritage Initiative y Langley Greenspace Strategy y Pennine Edge Forest y Red Rose Forest y Community Forests North West

It is important to ensure that Middleton’s GI priorities gain strong support from key agencies and organisations who have a Greater Manchester or regional remit for supporting or investing in green infrastructure, which supports sustainable low carbon growth, environmental regeneration, nature conservation, health services, environmental services such as climate change adaptation, surface water or flood risk management potential. These currently include: y Forestry Commission y Natural England y Environment Agency y North West Strategic Health Authority y Association of Greater Manchester Authorities and Greater Manchester Commissions

Middleton GI Action Plan draft. August 2011 Page 255 41 At a local scale it is important that green infrastructure is central to and embedded in the delivery of sustainable growth, regeneration and quality of life as set out in the Rochdale Borough Renaissance Masterplan, Pride of Place and the Local Development Framework in order that funding and delivery opportunities can be maximised linked to development, regeneration, community safety and health and well being strategies and initiatives.

The borough Green Infrastructure Strategy (to be completed in 2012) will provide a framework for each of the four Township Green Infrastructure Action Plans and how they individually and collectively deliver green infrastructure priorities for Rochdale borough and Greater Manchester. The Local Strategic Partnership provides a broad based partnership for helping to achieve cross cutting delivery of green infrastructure actions. The voluntary sector, such as Groundwork Oldham & Rochdale, the British Trust for Conservation Volunteers and groups such as Friends of Parks have an important role to play in ensuring that local communities are given opportunities to help shape and improve their environment. The voluntary sector can also access unique funding opportunities and has particular expertise in working with volunteers and young people who are a major resource for delivering green infrastructure actions.

Making Progress

The Middleton Green Infrastructure Plan will be delivered through a series of large and small actions through the life of the strategy to 2026. The accompanying annual work programme sets out details of actions that are proposed, who will deliver them and by when. It will also include details of outputs, outcomes and key milestones against which progress and performance can be measured and corrective action taken where needed. New evidence and information relevant to Middleton’s Green Infrastructure and issues affecting it will be used to review and inform projects and priorities where necessary.

‘Quick wins’ will result from often small changes to how green space is managed or by identifying projects within the next one to three years which can be linked to a specific development, regeneration project or funding source. In the medium term, between three and five years, projects will be developed in detail and their status or progress reviewed on an annual basis.

Projects which are proposed for more than five years into the future are currently aspirational but all are linked to potential enabling development, regeneration or opportunities which, although currently without a firm timescale, are likely to come forward through the life of the Action Plan. It is important to ensure these proposals are part of the long term vision and planning process so that they can be moved forward more quickly should circumstances allow.

Progress in delivering the action plan will be reviewed annually with Middleton Township and presented to key Township working groups dealing with physical change, health and the environment.

Ongoing consultation will also be carried out for key projects as they move forward to ensure they meet the needs of the community and provide opportunities to get involved in planning, delivering and managing projects wherever possible.

Middleton GI Action Plan draft. August 2011 Page 256 42 Glossary

Active transport: Modes of transport such as walking and cycling, which are based on physical activity rather than driving a car. Public transport is also described as active transport because in often involves walking or cycling to or between pickup points.

Adaptation to climate change impacts: Practical steps to protect towns and communities from the likely disruption and damage that will result from effects of climate change.

Biodiversity: The variety of all plant and animal life. The larger the range of animals, plants, fungi and micro-organisms in any given area, the higher the biodiversity. High biodiversity enables a population to be healthier and more resilient.

Biomass: Plant and animal waste materials used as a renewable fuel.

Climate change: Changes in the weather patterns primarily associated with increases in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

Connect 2: A project run by the sustainable transport charity Sustrans funded by the Big Lottery, which will connect isolated walking and cycling routes into the national network.

Core Strategy: The document that sets out the long-term spatial vision for the local planning authority’s area, the spatial objectives and strategic policies to deliver that vision.

De-culverting water courses: To open up rivers and streams that have previously been covered to flow underground through large pipes.

Energy crops: Crops, which are grown specifically as fuel, biomass (see above).

Environmental services: Benefits that society can gain from the wider environment (green infrastructure) such as protection from flood risk, land values and air quality.

Low carbon economy: An economy that produces a minimal amount of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

Infrastructure: Network of communications and utility services such as roads, drains, electricity, water, gas and telecommunication, required to enable the development of land.

Local Development Framework: A portfolio of local development documents which will provide the framework for delivering the spatial planning strategy for Rochdale up to 2026.

Local Strategic Partnership: A single, non-statutory, multi-agency body, which brings together different parts of the public, private, community and voluntary sectors within the local authority boundary.

Manchester City Region: A statutory partnership between the local authorities of Greater Manchester to support strategic planning, economic growth, environmental improvement and protection and investment in infrastructure and transport.

Middleton GI Action Plan draft. August 2011 Page 257 National Cycle Network: A comprehensive network of safe cycling routes running throughout the UK.

Non-native invasive species: Species that have been brought from their natural range into a new area where they outgrow and out-compete species natural to the new area.

Pennine Edge Forest: The woodland and environmental initiative for the east of Greater Manchester conurbation and includes the boroughs of Oldham, Rochdale, Stockport and Tameside.

Public realm: Outside space, that is accessible to the public such as streets, pavements, parks and squares.

Quick wins: Initiatives and projects that can be funded and implemented quickly, usually within one year.

Red Rose Forest: Community forest covering the Metropolitan Boroughs of Bolton, Bury, Trafford and Wigan and the Cities of Manchester and Salford.

SAC, Special Areas of Conservation: These are areas which have been given special protection under the European Union’s Habitats Directive.

SBI, Sites of Biological Importance: A non-statutory designation for a site. It is used to protect locally important and valued sites of high wildlife value.

SSSI, Site of Special Scientific Interest:

Sustainable development: Development that ensures that the use of resources and the environment today does not restrict their use by future generations.

Thematic Partnership: Local strategic partnership (LSP), which works together under a particular theme such as heath and well-being. LSPs bring together representatives from local statutory, voluntary, community and private sectors to address local problems local problems, allocate funding, discuss strategies and initiatives.

Urban green route: An accessible walking or cycling route through an urban area, which may be fringed with trees and other vegetation.

Urban heat island: The increased temperature of urban environment compared to the surrounding rural area. This is largely due to increased hard surfaces, which absorb and trap heat and a reduced number of trees and green areas that cool air effectively.

Wood Fuel: Timber, woodchip or waste wood, which is used for burning as fuel.

Voluntary sector: Organisations, other than local authorities that carry out activities not for profit.

Middleton GI Action Plan draft. August 2011 Page 258 Agenda Item 11

REPORT FOR DECISION

Agenda item no:

Middleton Township Committee September 2011

Report of Service Director for Regeneration

Draft Community Cohesion Strategy

Wards affected: All Report Author: Steph Kendrick-Jones

Telephone: (01706) 924346

1. It is recommended that:

1.1 All Townships Committees give consideration to the draft Community Cohesion Strategy and Action Plan and comments and amendments are fedback to the Principal Community Cohesion Officer as part of general consultation on the document before it is signed off by Cabinet.

2. Reasons for recommendation:

2.1 This recommendation is made to ensure that all Townships have had an input to the development of the Strategy and Action Plan.

3. Alternatives considered:

3.1 Not applicable.

4. Consultation undertaken/proposed:

4.1 The draft strategy has been developed by the Community Cohesion Priority Group. It has been presented and approved by Rochdale Safer Communities Partnership to which the Priority Group reports. It has also been approved by the Local Strategic Partnership Board and Informal Cabinet. The document is currently out for consultation with the public and has been circulated widely in electronic and hard copy versions.

5. Main text of report:

5.1 The new Strategy has been developed and to refreshed and once approved will be in place from 2011 until 2014. It contains an action plan which will be renewed annually. Priorities has been based on the findings of a comprehensive partnership self assessment.

1

Page 259

The strategy has undergone an Equality Impact Assessment as part of its development and has been amended to reflect this and as such will make a considerable contribution to the Councils Equality Standards targets.

6. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

The Strategy and Action Plan will be put in place within the current budgets of the Strategic Housing and Regeneration Service as well as partners and other Local Authority services.

7. LEGAL IMPLICATIONS

There are no legal implications.

8. RISK ASSESSMENT IMPLICATIONS

8.1 There are no specific risk issues for members to consider arising from this report.

9. EQUALITIES IMPACTS

9.1 Workforce Equality Impacts Assessment

There are no (significant) workforce equality issues arising form this report.

9.2 Equality/Community Impact Assessments

There are no (significant) equality/community issues arising form this report.

For further Information and Background Papers: For further information about this report or access to any background papers please contact Steph Kendrick-Jones Tel: 01706 92 4346 0r Sally Atueyi 01706 92 5631

2

Page 260

DRAFT

Community Cohesion Strategy

2011-2014

Page 261 1 Foreword

Welcome to Rochdale Borough’s Safer Communities Partnership Community Cohesion Strategy. Community Cohesion is about supporting diverse groups of people to successfully live alongside each other. A key component of this is promoting understanding and harmonious relationships between existing residents and newer residents to the borough and developing a shared sense of belonging.

This strategy demonstrates our commitment to providing a strong foundation for a cohesive borough by tackling inequalities, promoting fairness and empowering confident communities.

We believe that all citizens have a right to equal access to life opportunities.

We are proud that the borough is a place where most people get along, and this has given us a strong base to build upon and develop this strategy to ensure we work towards removing barriers to opportunities and to narrowing the gap between the most disadvantaged communities.

Over the last year much work has been undertaken to strengthen and support the development of this strategy to ensure the resulting programme of work is evidence based and targeted at locally identified issues.

Page 262 2 Introduction

Our vision for the Borough of Rochdale is for an integrated and cohesive community based on 3 foundations: • People from different backgrounds and age groups have similar life opportunities • People know their rights and responsibilities • People trust one another and trust local institutions to act fairly Our vision is also based on 3 key ways of living together which are: • A shared future vision and sense of belonging • A focus on what new and existing communities have in common, alongside a recognition of the value of diversity • Strong and positive relationships between people from different backgrounds and age groups.

Diagram 1 shows our vision, and our local priorities and gives some examples of actions to address these.

This three year, multi-agency Community Cohesion Strategy for Rochdale Borough presents our commitment to work together to achieve this vision. This strategy sets out our priorities for the borough and the actions which we will take to address these.

We recognise that different townships in the borough have different needs and therefore this strategy will be supported by township action plans which address specific geographical needs.

Examples of Work Undertaken to Promote Community Cohesion Some examples of recent work which we have undertaken to promote Community Cohesion include: • Appointing Community Cohesion Champions for the Local Strategic Partnership to promote community cohesion and good practice across all agencies and the borough. • Developing a Welcome Pack aimed at new communities settling in the borough • Developing Community Cohesion web pages on the Local Authority’s website • Closely monitoring any community tension • Developing a Learning Together to be Safe Toolkit and providing training to maximise its usage in schools. The training has enabled teachers to feel confident to identify and work with children and young people who may be are vulnerable to exploitation by the political motivation of others. • Undertaking work with the faith sector. This has involved building the membership and support for the work of the Multi Faith Partnership. Other work includes exchange visits, a faith walk and ongoing support to the Council of Mosques. • Working hard to reduce racist incidents in schools. It is pleasing to note that over the last 3 years racist incidents in schools has declined.

Page 263 3 Summary Community Cohesion Strategy

Our vision for the Borough of Rochdale is for an integrated and cohesive community based on 3 foundations: • People from different backgrounds and age groups have similar life opportunities • People know their rights and responsibilities • People trust one another and trust local institutions to act fairly

VISION Our vision is based on 3 key ways of living together which are: • A shared future vision and sense of belonging • A focus on what new and existing communities have in common, alongside a recognition of the value of diversity • Strong and positive relationships between people from different backgrounds and age groups.

3 KEY 3 WAYS OFLIVING TOGETHER Page 264 An Area Community Housing Children and Young Tackling Effective Based Relations People Deprivation Communication of Approach Community Cohesion OUR RIORITIE S Develop Develop a Set up a Housing Develop opportunities The development of a Develop a Proactive township Community Task Force to for intergenerational Skills Strategy and strategy of communication. action plans to Relations develop a community work to counter Tackling Deprivation address Programme. cohesion action plan negative attitudes about Plan. specific that will identify how young people. geographical the borough will issues. address pressure on social housing provision and how it will attract developers to build new housing.

EXAMPLE ACTION

4 The National Context

The coalition government has stated that it is committed “to creating One Nation”, a country where “every colour is a good colour … every member of every part of society is able to fulfil their potential … racism is unacceptable and counteracted … everyone is treated according to their needs and rights … everyone recognises their responsibilities … racial diversity is celebrated”.

The coalition government has been creating new policies through their Localism agenda, to devolve greater power and freedoms to councils and neighbourhoods, and to enable the establishment of powerful new rights for communities. New initiatives are emerging from these policies such as the Big Society initiative which is aimed at supporting and encouraging social responsibility, volunteering and philanthropy and making it easier for people to come together to improve their communities and help one another. The government is also supporting the creation and expansion of mutuals, co- operatives, charities and social enterprises, and aims to enable these groups to have much greater involvement in the running of public services. A National Citizen Service is being introduced which is a programme for 16 year olds to give them a chance to develop the skills needed to be active and responsible citizens, mix with people from different backgrounds, and start getting involved in their communities.

These new policies and initiatives are opportunities which can be harnessed by Rochdale Borough to empower communities and promote cohesion.

The coalition government has also passed equalities legislation, the Equality Act 2010, which has introduced a new public sector duty. One of the aims of this duty is to foster good relations between people who share a protected characteristic and those who do not.

The Local Context

Rochdale Borough’s population is constantly changing. The population is growing and becoming increasingly diverse. Community cohesion is a priority for this borough to support strong and positive relationships between people from different backgrounds and age groups. Rochdale Borough lies within the heart of the South Pennines, close to Manchester city centre. It has a population of 206,300 people (based on ONs mid year assessments in 2008) and includes the towns of Rochdale, Middleton and Heywood – and the Pennine area which covers the villages of Littleborough, Newhey and Milnrow. Each of these towns and villages has its own diverse and distinct identity. In 2006 an estimated 87 % of people within the borough were from white ethnic groups, with 11% of Pakistani, Kashmiri or Bangladeshi origin. The proportion of people from non-white ethnic groups is expected to increase to 20% by 2021. Rochdale Borough’s population is relatively young, but

Page 265 5 between 2001 and 2021 the number of people over retirement age is expected to grow by 30%.

Rochdale Borough is one of the most deprived boroughs in England, and is ranked between 10th and 47th most deprived in the Indices of Deprivation 2010 measures of deprivation at district level. Despite the continuing loss of jobs in the manufacturing sector, we had been successful in diversifying the economy. Across Rochdale Borough, 77.2% of the working age population is economically active and 22.8% are economically inactive. Proportions in employment are lower than regional and national averages and the rate of unemployment is correspondingly higher. (This is based on the ONS Annual Population Survey July 2008 – June 2009)

We recognise that tackling deprivation is a key priority for the borough and have developed strategies to address this. Diagram 2 outlines the link between Community Cohesion and deprivation and the strategies which have been developed to tackle this.

Factors Which Impact Upon Community Cohesion

There are a range of factors which may impact upon Community Cohesion such as: levels of deprivation, health and wellbeing, housing, the extent to which people from different backgrounds come together to improve their communities and help one another, the level of hate crime, values, attitudes and perceptions of the community and of fairness. Diagram 2 outlines these factors and their link with Community Cohesion and it also identifies the key strategies and initiatives which exist within the borough to address these issues.

Links with Key Strategies

Diagram 2

Factors which impact upon The Link Related Strategies and Community Cohesion Plans The extent to which The Big Society initiative aims to support Community Cohesion different groups have and encourage social responsibility, Strategy volunteering and philanthropy and make it The Borough’s Big the opportunity to easier for people to come together to Society Action Plan come together to improve their communities and help one Community Strategy improve their another. The government is also communities and help supporting the creation and expansion of one another. mutuals, co-operatives, charities and social enterprises, and aims to enable these groups to have a much greater involvement The government’s Big in the running of public services. A National Society initiative aims Citizens’ Service is being introduced which to make it easier for is a programme for 16 year olds to give people to come them a chance to develop the skills needed to be active and responsible citizens, mix together to improve with people from different backgrounds, and

Page 266 6 Factors which impact upon The Link Related Strategies and Community Cohesion Plans their communities and start getting involved in their communities. help one another. The development of the co-operative movement is a very important part of Rochdale Borough’s history. The Rochdale Pioneers established the first successful retail co-operative in 1844.

Levels of crime for Community Safety and Tension Safer Communities Plan example hate crime Monitoring Multi Agency Race and Developing Community Cohesion became Hate Forum (MARHF) Community Safety and End of Year Report 2010- Tension Monitoring one of the Safer Communities partnership’s key strategic objectives during 2008/09. 11 Since then work has been undertaken to try and improve the relations between all aspects of the community to promote a safer environment for all. The Safer Communities Plan Annual Update 2010 contains details of how we’ve performed in 2009.10, what we’ve been doing and our priorities and plans for 2010/11.

One of our priorities for 2010/11 was to develop a refreshed Community Cohesion strategy for the period 2011/2014. Key high level information relating to this such as our Community Cohesion vision, priorities, objectives and targets will feed into the draft Safer Communities Plan for 2011/2014.

Rochdale Borough has a Multi Agency Race and Hate Forum (MARHF) which has a charter and action plans to tackle hate crime and racial harassment in a positive manner.

Values, attitudes and Promoting the development of positive Children and Young perceptions values, attitudes and perceptions People’s Plan amongst children and young people

The previous government set out guidance for schools on promoting community cohesion. It recommended that teachers helped pupils "value diversity and promote awareness of human rights and the responsibility to uphold and defend them".

"An emphasis on Community Cohesion in schools enables pupils to understand the differences between cultures and backgrounds. It also demonstrated the role of schools as key drivers of functioning, safe and vibrant neighbourhoods." Promoting responsible reporting by the media

The media can have a significant influence

Page 267 7 Factors which impact upon The Link Related Strategies and Community Cohesion Plans on Community Cohesion and people’s perceptions of the community in which they Communications Strategy live. We will work with the media to promote Borough Branding the responsible reporting of incidents and a Initiative positive image of the borough.

Deprivation, Deprivation, Worklessness, low levels of Tackling Deprivation Worklessness, Low skills, Child Poverty Strategy Research has shown that how people feel Skills Strategy Skills Levels and Child about themselves, their neighbours and Child and Family Poverty Poverty where they live is influenced by economic Strategy issues, opportunities to learn and develop their skills and to make a positive contribution to the decisions that affect their life. Deprivation is a key factor which impacts upon cohesion. It can affect an individual’s satisfaction with their local areas and with services and their feelings about being able to influence local decisions. However the Commission on Integration and Cohesion state that although deprivation is a key influencer of cohesion, “the fact that some areas in Britain have high deprivation and high cohesion shows that local action can build resilience to its effects” (“Our Shared Future” page 27).

“Looked After” Children in public care, or ‘looked after “Looked After” Children Children children’ are young people who are in the Action Plan care of local authorities or who are looked after by foster carers or in children’s homes.

This group of young people have many strengths and abilities as well as particular needs. Making suitable provision for them enhances Community Cohesion whereas not doing so puts at risk a potentially vulnerable group who, in themselves, have much to contribute to cohesion within the Borough.

To achieve our aim to make Rochdale Borough “a thriving place where people want to live, work, visit and do business – a place in which we can all take pride.” then we must harness the capacity of all our citizens and particularly those for whom we discharge the role of corporate parent. Equalities New legislation has been passed, the Single Equality Scheme Equality Act 2010, which has introduced a new public sector duty, one of the aims of which is to foster good relations between people who share a protected characteristic and those who do not. This includes disabled people, men, women, those from minority ethnic groups, those of different

Page 268 8 Factors which impact upon The Link Related Strategies and Community Cohesion Plans sexual orientations, those of different religions or beliefs, pregnant women or those on maternity, people who have undertaken gender reassignment, married people and those in civil partnerships. Health and Wellbeing Community Cohesion is an important Health and Wellbeing contributor to health and health is an Strategy important contributor to Community Cohesion. “The link between indicators of poor Community Cohesion and health inequalities was explored in research by the Neighbourhood Renewal Unit for the Audit Commission, in a review of Community Cohesion in the Cheshire and Mersey Local Strategic Partnership area. The research suggests that there is a correlation between a lack of cohesion and inequality in life chances at the local level leading to poorer outcomes between and within communities or neighbourhoods. Common characteristics of areas lacking in Community Cohesion are economic inequality, a high incidence of poor mental health, and variable access to appropriate and high quality services.” [Extract from Better Together: A guide for people in the Health service on how you can help to build more cohesive communities Institute of Community Cohesion, 2008, page 16] Housing and Planning “A well-integrated mix of decent homes of RBH Corporate Plan different types and tenures is an important Planning Policies and feature of a sustainable community. This Strategies mix is necessary because in a diverse society households are of different sizes, ages and incomes. Good accessible public transport and a flourishing local economy are needed for sustainable communities so that everyone can access a range of jobs and facilities that match their individual needs… Planning policies should address accessibility for all jobs, health, housing, education, shops, leisure and community facilities.” (Office of the Deputy Prime Minister: Diversity and Equality in Planning: A good practice guide. 2005 page 21)

Our Priorities

Our key priorites for Rochdale Borough include: area based working, promoting good community relations, having effective communication on cohesion, tackling deprivation, meeting housing needs and young people. These priorities have been determined from a self assessment that was

Page 269 9 completed by key partners across the LSP with data taken from a range sources including:

• Research by Manchester University on Race, Housing and Community Cohesion • The Place Survey • GMP Information System/Strategic Threat Assessment • Feedback from the Youth Council

Each priority will be discussed in turn below.

An Area based approach Our strategy has a targeted area based approach which includes individual township action plans to address specific issues and the priorities of geographical areas.

In Rochdale Borough we have a Multi Agency Race and Hate Forum (MARHF), and a MARHF Charter which contains the following objectives: • To further develop the understanding of hate crime and racial issues within the Forum to promote multi-agency working • To raising awareness of hate crime and racial harassment throughout the borough • To tackle hate crime and racial harassment in a positive manner

Hate crimes are defined by the Criminal Justice System as “crimes and incidents …where the perpetrator’s prejudice against an identifiable group of people is a factor in determining who is victimised.” The strands of “monitored” hate crime include disability, race, religion, sexual orientation and transgender.

In Rochdale Borough for the year 2010-11: Victim Support received 343 referrals for victims of hate crime and a total of 31 hate crime incidents were reported to social landlords.

It should be noted that there has been a steady reduction in the number of hate crimes reported to social landlords in Rochdale Borough.

For 2011-12 the MARHF has developed a new action plan that is targeted at supporting victims even more than in previous years by giving an opportunity for more of its members to become more practicably involved in supporting victims of hate crime. An example of this is the attendance of the MARHF lead officer at the newly implemented bi-weekly vulnerable people’s meetings facilitated by the police.

Page 270 10 Key actions for the Borough of Rochdale include, amongst other things:

• Improving the image of the townships • Effective joint working with our partners across GM • Tackling hate crime and racial harassment in a positive manner • Tackling under-reporting of hate crimes for example those directed to disabled people and their carers and also homophobic crimes • Increasing the level of meaningful contact across townships and developing a sense of belonging and a shared identity across the borough

Promoting and Having Effective Communication of Community Cohesion Our aim is to develop good Community Cohesion across the borough by having clear leadership arrangements and by setting out our partner and partnership contributions to this. This will be reflected in organisational business arrangements. We will identify and increase activity which is working extremely well and which is tangibly making a difference. We will also identify, manage and mitigate trigger points which could detrimentally affect and undermine cohesion in the borough.

The media can have a great influence on Community Cohesion. The way that the media portrays incidents can have a significant impact on residents. We will work effectively with the media and partners to promote a positive image of the borough, responsible reporting and Community Cohesion.

Promoting Good Community Relations We are committed to promoting good community relations and are working closely with communities to develop an Active Citizenship Register made up of people from a cross section of communities living within our borough. We hope to engage with this group to check out how they feel about cohesion within the borough and work in partnership to address any issues.

All agencies across the Local Strategic Partnership are assessing staff training needs and developing cohesion training as appropriate. We are also working with new and emerging communities to build a greater understanding of their needs and support requirements.

We are developing an active volunteering programme so that local people can be involved in their local communities and have the opportunity to develop new relationships with people from different backgrounds.

We believe that councillors have an important role in promoting good community relations and this role is being further developed.

Page 271 11 Tackling deprivation Rochdale Borough has a strong history of good Community Cohesion and Rochdale Council as lead partner within the Local Public Service Board has in the past been awarded beacon status for its work. Within Rochdale Borough tackling deprivation is a key priority and a multi-agency borough Strategy has been developed to address this.

Everyone living and working in Rochdale Borough has a stake in building a positive and prosperous future. Research has shown that how people feel about themselves, their neighbours and where they live is influenced by economic issues, opportunities to learn and develop their skills and to make a positive contribution to the decisions that affect their life. Deprivation is one of the factors which impacts upon cohesion. It may affect an individual’s satisfaction with their local areas and with services and their feelings about being able to influence local decisions. However research has also demonstrated that although levels of deprivation are a key influencer of cohesion, local action can build resilience to its effects. This is shown by the fact that some areas have high deprivation but also have high cohesion.

Promoting cohesive communities has a part to play to support the borough’s multi agency approach to alleviating deprivation and poverty. It can help to develop a strong community spirit and resilient communities. Our borough approach to tackling deprivation together focuses on the estates falling within the 3% most deprived in the borough. This initiative centres attention on increasing the skills of its residents, work, increasing incomes, and improving health.

Details of how we propose to promote cohesive communities will be provided in the action plans which support this strategy.

Children and Young People Promoting Community Cohesion includes tackling attitudes, perceptions and myths and developing the role of young people. Young people should be supported to develop positive social opinions and values to enable people to live together well through understanding the need for respect and tolerance. We value young people and welcome their contribution to society. We work in partnership to increase and support the impact of young people’s viewpoints on policy, practice and local issues. This is done by empowering young people’s involvement in decision making. We have an effective Youth Council and township youth forums which aim to provide a young people’s voice at township level. Other examples of youth forums are those set up by Hopwood Hall College to identify the needs of learners and to provide them with the opportunity to be involved in reviewing and assessing services and identifying the priorities of learners. Hopwood Hall College also hold a Learner Voice conference and are working towards meeting 10 key priorities identified by learners.

Page 272 12 In Rochdale Borough we work in partnership to increase young people’s participation in positive activities such as volunteering. The “V” project which will provide a huge expansion of volunteering opportunities for young people.

Rochdale Safer Communities Partnership commissioned a borough profile to provide a greater understanding of Community Cohesion within the Borough of Rochdale. The findings indicated that young people aged between 18 and 24 years were most likely to feel that they were not treated with respect by local public services and were least likely to feel that people from different backgrounds get on well in their areas. The profile identified potential priority areas for resolving community tensions involving young people.

A Schools Census undertaken in October 2009 has shown that the school population is rapidly diversifying and this could provide opportunities to integrate and educate school children promoting Community Cohesion in the future.

We will take action to:

• build relationships and reduce conflicts involving young people from different sections of the community by working with schools, colleges and the wider community to promote exchange and joint activities • support young people to develop skills in the understanding of social issues that affect them at a local and national in a way that promotes the value of dialogue and celebrates diversity • provide intergenerational activities to promote understanding between young and older people and to counter negative attitudes about young people • improve young people’s satisfaction with local services • work in partnership with others to support action to address gang, drug and alcohol related issues

Housing Promoting cohesive communities involves promoting interaction between people and groups. The borough’s local housing services have worked in partnership with others to develop initiatives and targets to achieve more integrated neighbourhoods. Families have been given support to move into new areas through the Community Induction Programme which was developed in partnership with Greater Places. Demographic information suggests that the BME communities are concentrated in the inner Rochdale Township wards and that the BME population is projected to grow significantly over the next two decades. It is also projected that there will be significant growth in BME households over the same period. These factors will be addressed in our housing plans.

Details of how we will promote sustainable and cohesive communities are provided in the actions plans which support this strategy.

Page 273 13 Identifying Community Cohesion Issues and Collecting Monitoring Information

Rochdale Borough has an Engagement Strategy which is based on good practice and which sets out the Local Strategic Partnership’s approach to engaging with communities. We consult and engage with local communities extensively to monitor our progress against key objectives, and to identify new and emerging issues. We will involve communities in shaping and implementing solutions to address cohesion issues. Examples of ways in which we engage with our communities include:

• Undertaking surveys, • Holding Listening Events • Conducting Focus groups • Organising Youth Events • Holding an annual conference to consult and report on our Housing Strategy • Supporting a Youth Forum/Parliament • Holding School Governors Forums

Rochdale MBC and its partners collect a wide range of information on Community Cohesion. We will continue to build on and improve data collection and the sharing of intelligence between key agencies. We hope to identify any data gaps around the profile of new and emerging communities and take action to fill these gaps. The information collected will be used to monitor the effectiveness of the Strategy and Action Plan.

Measuring Community Cohesion

We have selected a range of performance indicators to measure community cohesion within the borough. These include:

Indicator Reference Indicator Description NI 1 People from different backgrounds that get on well together

NI 2 Percentage of people who feel that they belong to their neighbourhood NI 4 Percentage of people who feel they can influence decisions in their locality NI 23 Perceptions that people in the area treat one another with respect and dignity NI 117 16 to 18 year olds who are not in education, training or employment (NEET) NI 153 Working age people claiming out of work benefits in the worst performing neighbourhoods

Page 274 14 Arrangements for Implementing the Strategy and Monitoring and Reporting on Progress

Community Cohesion champions and task groups will be charged with taking forward the strategy within the Borough. We will continue to effectively mainstream Community Cohesion across all services and Community Cohesion actions will be incorporated in all team plans and individual work plans. The following arrangements are in place to monitor and report on progress against the Community Cohesion Strategy and Action Plans. The Safer Communities Partnership is responsible for Community Cohesion and works with other partnerships within the borough to embed our cohesion work across the Local Strategic Partnership as a whole. A diagram showing the structure of the Local Strategic Partnership is provided on page 15.

The Community Cohesion Priority Group is a sub-committee which reports to the Safer Communities Partnership. This group will oversee the implementation of the strategy and action plans. Key partners are represented on this group. This group will present quarterly reports on progress against actions and targets to the Safer Communities Partnership. The Safer Communities Partnership will present regular updates as well as an annual progress report on Community Cohesion to the Local Strategic Partnership.

We will inform the public and staff about progress against community cohesion objectives and targets through:

• An Annual Progress Report •The Internet and Intranet • The use of the media for advertising and press releases • The display of public notices • Information and advice services to the public and organisations

Reviewing the Effectiveness of the Scheme and the Action Plans

The strategy and action plans will be reviewed each year by the Community Cohesion Priority Group and Safer Communities Partnership.

The Council and its partners monitor the impact of their policies and the services which they deliver. They obtain feedback from customers and staff through a variety of ways e.g. customer feedback through consultation exercises such as conducting surveys, public consultations, user groups, contact with local councillors, complaints procedures, talking to residents and staff and discussing issues through focus groups.

Page 275 15 Local Public Service Board (Quarterly)

Strategic Rochdale Rochdale Safer Communities Partnership Board (Quarterly) Local Criminal Justice Links to Group (Bi-monthly)

Partnership Performance and Crime Partnership Improvement Board Commissioning Board (Quarterly) (Bi-monthly)

Partnership Business Group Urgent (as required) Strategic Priority Groups (Quarterly) Community Tensions Group Tactical 6-weekly & Thematic Groups

Township Safer Communities Reducing Crime and Adult Re-offending

DV Forum Page 276 MARHF Heywood Tactical Middleton Pennines Rochdale Tasking Group 6-weekly Tac tical Tasking Group Tactical Tasking Tactical Tasking 6-weekly Group 6-weekly Group 6-weekly Reducing the Harm caused by Drugs & Alcohol

Priority and Commissioning Group Ward PACT Panels Ward PACT Panels Ward PACT Panels Ward PACT Panels Young People, Crime, Adult Drug Treatment, (Monthly) (Monthly) (Monthly) (Monthly)

KEY Preventing and Tackling Anti Social Behaviour Cells Overseeing groups - The Performance Board oversees performance and commissions crime reduction initiatives ASBRAC Strategic Priority Groups; also have thematic groups below them Case Intervention Group Cells ASBO Threshold Panel Operational Township Tactical Tasking Groups (TTGs) will: Concentrate on Reducing Crime and Anti Social Behaviour and Sections of the The PBG Preventing Offending by Performance Management Framework Has Tactical & Strategic Children & Young People Cells Responsibilities at both

The Community Tensions Group will only be operated in times of Urgent need, ongoing Borough-wide and

tensions will be monitored and dealt with by the PBG Township levels Developing Community Cohesion Advisory role to all LSP Priority Partnerships Background All of these groups are borough-wide and strategic Preventing Violent Extremism Group Background All of these groups are operational and township focused “Increasing Confidence and Satisfaction is the responsibility of all operational and strategic groups” 16

Appendix 2 - Demographic Information

Map 1 Rochdale Borough Geography

Page 277 17 Age profile The age profile of Rochdale Borough’s residents broadly mirrors that of the region and England (Table 1), although there is a higher proportion of residents aged 0-19 compared with regional and national data. Table 1 Age profile Rochdale North England Age Group Borough (%) West (%) (%) 0-19 26.9 24.4 24.0 20-39 26.0 26.1 27.2 40-59 27.0 27.1 26.8 60-74 13.3 14.7 14.2 75+ 6.8 7.7 7.8 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 Base (000s) 206.3 6875.7 51556.2 Source: ONS 2008 Mid-Year Population Estimates

Ethnic Profile of Rochdale Borough’s Residents 86.1% of the population describe themselves as White British. Other groups include White Other (2.7%), White Irish (1.3%), Indian (2.1%), Pakistani (1.4%), Black Caribbean (1.1%) and Black African (1.0%). By comparison 7.8% of the population of the North West and 13% of the population in England are from ethnic groups other than White British. Table 2 Ethnicity of Rochdale Borough’s population Rochdale Rochdale Borough North West England Borough % Ethnicity (number) British 176800 86.1 92.2 87.0 White Irish 2995 1.5 1.2 1.3 Other 2097 1.0 1.1 2.7 White/Black Caribbean 614 0.3 0.3 0.5 White / Black African 236 0.1 0.1 0.2 Mixed White / Asian 777 0.4 0.3 0.4 Other 288 0.1 0.2 0.3 Indian 741 0.4 1.1 2.1 Asian or Pakistani 15829 7.7 1.7 1.4 Asian British Bangladeshi 2593 1.3 0.4 0.6 Other 955 0.5 0.2 0.5 Black or Black Caribbean 279 0.1 0.3 1.1 Black Black African 297 0.1 0.2 1.0 British Other 63 0.0 0.1 0.2 Chinese Chinese 491 0.2 0.4 0.4 or other Other 294 0.1 0.2 0.4 Base 205349 100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: 2001 census

Page 278 18 Economic activity rates Across Rochdale Borough, 77.2% of the working age population is economically active and 22.8% are economically inactive. Proportions in employment are lower than regional and national averages and the rate of unemployment is correspondingly higher.

Table 3 Labour supply in Rochdale Borough Rochdale North Borough West England Economic Activity (%) (%) (%) Total Economically Active 77.2 76.8 79.0 In employment 69.9 70.8 73.4 Unemployed 9.5 7.8 7.1 Economically inactive 22.8 23.2 21.0 Base: Working Age Population 127,100 Source: ONS Annual Population Survey July 2008 – June 2009

Rochdale Borough Income Profile Individual earnings in Rochdale Borough are lower than the regional and national median. The distribution of household income (head of household and partner if applicable) across Rochdale Borough is summarised in Table 4 and this is compared with regional and national data. This data also includes the incomes of economically-inactive households. It indicates that 49.8% of households receive an income of less than £350 per week (compared with 41% regionally and 38% nationally). In contrast, 18.8% receive more than £750 per week (compared with 24% regionally and 28% nationally).

Table 4 Rochdale Borough Income Profile Rochdale Gross Household Income each Borough week (%) North West (%) England (%) Under £150 18,2 14.0 13.0 £150 to <£250 18.3 14.0 14.0 £250 to <£350 13.3 13.0 11.0 £350 to <£450 11.6 11.0 10.0 £450 to <£600 12.1 13.0 13.0 £600 to <£750 7.8 11.0 11.0 £750 to <£1000 9.4 13.0 12.0 £1000 or over 9.4 11.0 16.0 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 Base 86,363 Not Specified Not Specified Source: 2010 Household Survey, Regional Trends 2008

Page 279 19

Economic Migrants – Oversees Nationals Working in Rochdale Borough 2004/05 to 2008/09 Table 5 shows that for Rochdale Borough, people from Poland and Pakistan were the largest cohort of overseas nationals working in the District. Of these, Polish nationals are the largest single group (peaking in 2006/7 at 530).

Table 5 Overseas nationals applying to work in Rochdale Borough 2004/05 to 2008/09 Rochdale Borough Annual Origin 2004/5 2005/6 2006/7 2007/8 2008/9 Average Pakistan 240 290 350 330 310 304 India 50 50 50 20 20 38 Poland 50 360 530 510 250 340 Zimbabwe 30 10 10 10 20 16 Bangladesh 20 50 50 50 40 42 Czech Rep 20 30 10 10 20 18 Portugal 20 20 60 40 60 40 South Africa 20 10 10 0 10 10 Iran 10 30 10 10 0 12 Congo 10 30 10 0 30 16 Slovak Rep 10 20 40 60 10 28 Elsewhere EU 60 140 100 80 110 98 Elsewhere 70 90 100 150 110 104 Total 610 1,130 1,330 1,270 990 1,066 Source: Department for Work and Pensions. National Insurance Number Registrations in respect of non-UK Nationals by country of origin. N.B. Numbers rounded up to nearest 10 and totals may not add up due to rounding.

Page 280 20

Qualifications Around 40% of economically-active residents in Rochdale Borough have at least a NVQ3 level qualification (compared with 44.2% regionally), but only 18.7% have a NVQ4 level qualification and above (compared with 25.6% regionally and 28.7% nationally) (Table B9).

Table 5 Educational attainment of Rochdale’s economically-active population Rochdale North Borough West England Highest Qualification (%) (%) (%) NVQ4 and above 18.7 25.6 28.7 NVQ3 and above 39.7 44.2 46.5 NVQ2 and above 57.7 64.2 64.6 NVQ1 and above 71.7 78.1 78.8 Trade Apprenticeships 4.3 4.7 4.1 Other Qualifications 8.4 7.2 8.9 No Qualifications 19.9 14.7 12.3 Base (Working age Pop) 126,800 Source: ONS Annual Population Survey; July 2008 – June 2009

Page 281 21 Figure1 Rochdale Borough household tenure profile 2010

Source: 2010 household survey

Table 6 Comparison of national and regional tenure profiles with Rochdale Borough Rochdale North England Tenure Borough (%) West (%) (%) Owner-occupied 68.5 71.0 71.0 Social Rented 23.9 20.0 18.0 Private Rented 7.4 9.0 11.0 Intermediate tenure 0.2 # # Total 100 100 100 Source: 2010 Household Survey; 2008 Regional Trends

Projected Household Change in Rochdale Borough 2006-2031 ONS household projections (2006-based) are summarised in Figure 2 (overleaf). The number of Rochdale Borough households is expected to increase from 85,000 in 2006 to 102,000 by 2031, an increase of 20% (Figure 2). This equates to an average annual increase of around 650 households.

Page 282 22

Figure 2 Projected household change 2006-2031

Source: Sub-national household projections 2006-based

Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME) households in Rochdale Borough 2010 The Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA 2010) household survey identified around 9,500 households who were headed by someone who had an ethnicity other than White British. Some facts relating to these households are: • They are distributed across the District but concentrated in Rochdale township (75.7%), with the remainder living in the Pennines townships (11.1%), Middleton (9.6%) and Heywood (3.5%); • A majority (62.9%) are owner occupiers, 29.4% are social renters, 7.6% are private renters and 0.1% live in intermediate-tenure dwellings; • 58.3% have a gross income of less than £300 per week and 14.1% receive more than £500 per week; • 883 BAME households are in some form of housing need (9.2% of BAME households): overcrowding, harassment and needing properties more suitable for a person with an illness/disability are most likely to be cited as reasons for being in need; • 21.1% are dissatisfied with the state of repair of their homes (compared with 5.5% of all households). Repair problems most likely to be cited include dampness/mould growth (31.7%) and cold/heating problems (28.9%).

Page 283 23 Appendix 3 – Draft Action Plan

Rochdale Safer Communities Partnership - Community Cohesion Priority Group Annual Action Plan 2011/2012

Our vision for the Borough of Rochdale is for an integrated and cohesive community based on 3 foundations:

• People from different backgrounds and age groups have similar life opportunities • People know their rights and responsibilities • People trust one another and trust local institutions to act fairly

Our vision is also based on 3 key ways of living together which are:

Page 284 • A shared future vision and sense of belonging • A focus on what new and existing communities have in common, alongside a recognition of the value of diversity • Strong and positive relationships between people from different backgrounds and age groups.

GREEN All milestones being met and on target as per plans AMBER Good progress being made against milestones RED Unsatisfactory progress - milestones and timescales not being met LAVENDER Actions not yet planned to be underway

Area of Work/ Indicator Action needed Key Milestones Outcomes Timescales & Lead Officer/ Risks and Theme Budgets Agency Contingencies Priority Area One: Area Based Approach Each Township CC2 & CC4 Township Key stakeholders Local In Place by April Township Uncertainty about to develop supported to identified communities are 2012 Managers outcome of current Community develop evidence involved in restructure of Cohesion Action based action plans Action plans drafted identifying and Township and townships and resources available Plans based on to promote addressing any Service Budgets themake up of cohesion issues that might the Township affect cohesion in and their local area identification of need

24 Area of Work/ Indicator Action needed Key Milestones Outcomes Timescales & Lead Officer/ Risks and Theme Budgets Agency Contingencies

Increase contact CC2, CC1 & Participation in the Township membership People have the In place by April Township Resources available across the CC3 planning of key on the events steering opportunity to 2012 Managers and motivation of Townships to borough events group develop people to become develop a sense and promotion of understanding Township and involved of belonging, a borough wide and build good Service Budgets shared identity events relations with and a positive Identify community people from other image of Development of centres and groups parts of the Townships exchange/twinning across the borough and borough across the of community promote exchange borough centres and groups activities

Page 285 Develop an CC3 Scope out the X 2 Project plans X 2 Counter December 2011 Principal Politically sensitive understanding of work with the produced and narratives Community area of work which patterns of University of programmes designed produced to Housing and Cohesion Officer has been signed off support for Nottingham and promote Regeneration at LSP Board extremist Government mainstream Budget/ ideologies in the Officer North voices Community Safety borough and West develop a range of interventions and counter narratives to challenge

Tackle levels of CC3 Develop Hate Implement Hate Crime Ensure people July 2011 Chief Inspector for Reduced resources hate crime in Crime Action Plan Action Plan reporting hate Criminal Justice available identified and supporting crime are Greater Manchester and Partnerships geographical working groups supported and Police Budget areas and action is taken to develop focused reduce hate crime

25 Area of Work/ Indicator Action needed Key Milestones Outcomes Timescales & Lead Officer/ Risks and Theme Budgets Agency Contingencies action plans to incidents in support victims identified areas in relation to Disability and LGBT hate crime Priority Area Two – Community Relations Develop a CC1, CC2 & Meet with other Establish the role and A core group of March 2012 Principal Maybe difficult to Community CC3 Local Authorities areas to work within active citizens Community engage and build Relations that have or are that can promote Housing and Cohesion Officer support for the idea Programme developing Identify interested and build Regeneration community people Community Budget/Community Page 286 relations Cohesion across Safety programmes Roll out programme the borough

Produce project plan and implement

Develop the role of elected members Development of CC1 & CC3 Delivery of the Programme of work People have the April 2011 – Link4Life – a focussed Knitty Gritty for the group opportunity to March 2012 Manger of activity which group at develop Touchstones brings together Touchstones, understanding Link4Life Budget people from Rochdale which and build good different attracts people relations with backgrounds from diverse people from other communities parts of the borough Manage and CC1, CC2 & Implement the Strategic Threat Proactive Ongoing Principal Possibility of mitigate any CC3 findings of the Assessment compiled approach to Community structure not adequately

26 Area of Work/ Indicator Action needed Key Milestones Outcomes Timescales & Lead Officer/ Risks and Theme Budgets Agency Contingencies trigger points Strategic Threat and recommendations manage any Cohesion Officer capturing tensions. that could have a Assessment made community Housing and Need to review detrimental Monthly tensions Regeneration structure regularly affect on contribution to the Budget/ cohesion across Business Community Safety the borough Partnership Daily scanning of media for coverage that has the potential to raise community tensions Local Heroes: CC2 Commission CVS Posters produced and An increase of By June 2011 CVS and Need to ensure that there is a range of Page 287 Volunteering to manage project launched in Volunteer 25% in Community Safety Project Week volunteering by Communication’s volunteering Identify local 2012 and 50% Housing and Officer opportunities available. The heroes and increase of Regeneration process is being produce posters contacts to CVs Budget managed managed by CVS. during the life of by CVS the project Increase the diversity of people volunteering

Link4 Life: Attract Implementation of Increase in the % April 2011 Link4Life Volunteer unemployed project of people Project people into sport recruited volunteering Set targets of number Link4Life Budget opportunities of volunteers recruited through dissemination of

27 Area of Work/ Indicator Action needed Key Milestones Outcomes Timescales & Lead Officer/ Risks and Theme Budgets Agency Contingencies promotional material and outreach work

Support the CC1 & CC 3 Attendance at Development of An increased Ongoing from Principal Reduced capacity work of Multi meetings and programme of understanding of April 2011 Community as dedicated post Faith development of activities faiths and the role Cohesion Officer lost in efficiency Partnership and joint work and they play in a saving the Council of activities cohesive borough Multi Faith Mosques to throughout the by supporting 4 Partnership and promote a year events facilitated Council of Mosque Page 288 greater by the to fund activities understanding of partnership. faiths

Fire Service to CC1,CC2CC3 7 Move fire station Community facilities People have the April 2011 Fire Service move to CC4 to Halifax Road established opportunity to Borough Community Fire Develop develop Commander Station community understanding facilities and build good Greater Manchester Work with relations with Fire Service Heybrook County others Budget Primary School New Cadet Scheme with Wardle School Develop Role Model/Mentoring Scheme Map out and CC1 & CC2 Carry out mapping Mapped exercise Speakers of other August 2011 Advancement Changes to

28 Area of Work/ Indicator Action needed Key Milestones Outcomes Timescales & Lead Officer/ Risks and Theme Budgets Agency Contingencies promote English exercise completed languages are Network Co- funding of ESOL for Speakers of Produce aware of Within Existing ordinator classes nationally Other Languages information to availability of budgets mean access to (ESOL) classes promote classes classes and provision for locally charges for ESOL some may be reduced Continue to CC1, CC2 & Work with Support group Schools services Ongoing Equality and Council lead new support New and CC£ Shamwari to established aware of the throughout the year Cohesion Lead for and emerging Emerging establish a support current issues Schools communities Communities group Teachers briefed faced by new and Within Existing group disbanded within the emerging budgets voluntary sector Identify options communities and and raise for voluntary sector

Page 289 awareness of training/briefing supported to issues within for teachers continue to these provide services communities and expertise specifically within the Schools Service

Mapping out CC2 Map out existing Identify areas of need Ensure Ongoing Private Sector Impact of and identify service provision engagement and throughout the year Development efficiency specific needs of appropriate Within Existing Manager savings within the Gypsies and service provision budgets the council Traveller for Travellers and Gypsies Priority Area Three: Housing Develop a Set up a Housing Encouraging people Address pressure By December 2011 RBC Housing Housing Task Force from BME on social housing Manager Cohesion Action communities to move and the affects of Plan Develop Action to non traditional area the recession Housing and Plan Regeneration

29 Area of Work/ Indicator Action needed Key Milestones Outcomes Timescales & Lead Officer/ Risks and Theme Budgets Agency Contingencies Provide ongoing Budget support to sustain tenancies

Priority Area Four: Children, Young People and Intergenerational Work Build CC1 & CC3 Training for Set up a steering group Better relations Sept 2011 to April Equality and relationship Teachers and Support the curriculum built between 2012 Cohesion Lead for between schools , School Governors PSHCE/Citizenship/RE pupils across Schools prevent conflicts Identify schools Contribute to the Child targeted schools Schools Service between young and issues and Young People Plan Budgets people from Develop a

Page 290 different sections programme of of the activities community in Twin schools and identified develop exchange geographical visits areas

As above CC1 & CC3 Deliver a range of Primary Schools Mini Better relations July 2011 Link4Life - sporting activities Games event built between and events which pupils across a bring together range of schools children and young and Greater people from Borough Final Manchester particularly boroughs disadvantaged communities

And ultimately Greater Manchester local young people County Final July 2011 (‘Team Rochdale’) are united in Link4Life Budget sporting

30 Area of Work/ Indicator Action needed Key Milestones Outcomes Timescales & Lead Officer/ Risks and Theme Budgets Agency Contingencies competition with their peers from across the region

Develop CC1 & CC3 Schools and Intergenerational Better relations In place for plans Township May be reliant on opportunities for townships to projects developed and between younger for 2012 Managers funding intergenerational develop a range of included in Township and older people Equality and work to counter activities or Cohesion plans using Schools Service Cohesion Lead for negative projects testimonials to and Township Schools attitudes about see if negative Budgets young people attitudes have changed

Page 291 Develop CC4 Undertake Information gathered Better relations May 2011 Equality and Need to ensure opportunities for meetings between from the meetings and with young Cohesion lead for information and young people to the police and acted on used to inform people and the Schools feedback is use debate and young people in policy and practice Rochdale safer Greater Manchester Chief Inspector for

Newbold, Kirkholt Communities Police Budget Criminal Justice discuss issues that affect them and Deeplish Young people more Partnership and and Partnerships involved in the Local Youth Services See Township management of local Authority and Senior Youth Action Plans for services in Township Worker details of a range areas Three meetings Township of activities to one in each area Managers engage young Carry out student people learner’s council

meetings, Principals

Support learner Questions Time and engagement Student Leadership Learners activities at meetings. contribute, ask New delivery Quality Manager Need to ensure lack Hopwood Hall questions and are programme in for Equality & of funding does not College so a range Carry out an annual involved in place from Sept Diversity and affect delivery. of mechanisms are Learner Voice decisions that 2011 for delivery Learner Ensure plans are committed to.

31 Area of Work/ Indicator Action needed Key Milestones Outcomes Timescales & Lead Officer/ Risks and Theme Budgets Agency Contingencies available for Conference. affect them and throughout the Experience learners to debate make a positive academic year. and discuss issues contribution to that affect them. the college and Hopwood Hall wider community. College Budget

Children and CC1 & CC3 Opportunity for Safe spaces identified Young people Ongoing Youth Services young people debate and across schools, value diversity and Youth develop positive discussion created colleges etc.. and can challenge Parliament social attitudes in a variety of discrimination Township that value setting Managers Page 292 diversity and Hopwood Hall promote respect Greater Manchester college and Sixth Mentoring and role Fire Service and Forum College model project run within existing Equality and by the Fire Service service budgets. Cohesion lead for Schools

Fire Service with the Youth service To bring CC1, CC2, CC3 Bring together Increased participation To increase the June 2011 to April Youth Services together and & CC4 young people from with young people and participation of 2012 and Youth increase the existing identification of issues young people Parliament and participation of consultation around cohesion for from a range of From existing Engagement Team young people structures with children and young backgrounds budgets Hopwood Hall from a range of Youth services, people college and Sixth backgrounds to Schools and Forum College listen to and colleges Equality and discuss their Cohesion lead for ideas in relation Ongoing work by Schools to cohesion Youth services to engage with

32 Area of Work/ Indicator Action needed Key Milestones Outcomes Timescales & Lead Officer/ Risks and Theme Budgets Agency Contingencies children and young people that traditionally do not engage in these structures Implement a CC5 Implement Secure resources Reduce numbers April 2011 – April Skills Need to secure range of targeted activities Delivery of project of young people 2002 Transformation resources approaches to at priority groups that are NEET Officer support young as outlined in Dependent on people that are Skills Strategy 2.5 external funding NEET or at risk bid of becoming NEET

Page 293 Priority Area Five: Tackling Deprivation Employment: Still being Implementation of Referrals being Assist people to Start date June Employments Uncertainty Tacking discussed new Government received by get into work and 2011 Links and regarding economic unemployment Work Programme Employment Links and provide ongoing Groundwork climate as a result of the and Skill Strategy Groundwork and support to stay in Housing and recession Priority 4 ongoing support work Regeneration Skills and packages provided Budget Employment Manager Skills CC4 Development of Community members Skills June 2011 Skills and Securing development Skills identified to influence Development Housing and Employment involvement from Commissioning Skills Commissioning Services Regeneration Manager community and Framework responsive to Budget resources to implement local needs Skills CC1 & CC3 Delivery of sports Completion of 12 week 20 people achieve August 2011 Link4Life development coaching skills sports leadership a requisite level based programme training course in of coaching Link4Life Budget for unemployed Link4Life venues and qualification to people community settings fitness industry and national

33 Area of Work/ Indicator Action needed Key Milestones Outcomes Timescales & Lead Officer/ Risks and Theme Budgets Agency Contingencies sports governing body standards, improving their employment prospects in the sector Skills CC1 & CC3 Delivery of coach Completion of borough More adults June 2011 – March Link4Life - development education wide ‘Get Coaching’ gaining coaching 2012 programme course qualifications Link4Life Budget Skills CC1 & CC3 Promotion and Adults who reside only June 2011 – Link4Life - Julie development delivery of the within these March 2012 Durrant

Page 294 Greater wards/localities Manchester Police gaining coaching Link4Life Budget funded ‘Get qualifications and in Coaching’ turn will deliver Programme in the coaching activities following areas - back in their Smallbridge, neighbourhood Firgrove, Central communities Rochdale, Kingsway, Milkstone & Deeplish, Balderstone & Kirkholt and Hopwood Hall Set up a CC1, CC2, CC3 Development of Recruitment and Community April 2011 Skills and Securing network of & CC4 programme of training of community Champions onwards Employment involvement from Community activities champions available to Manager community and Champions provide support Housing and resources to implement and build reliance Regeneration of within their Service Budget neighbourhood

34 Area of Work/ Indicator Action needed Key Milestones Outcomes Timescales & Lead Officer/ Risks and Theme Budgets Agency Contingencies

Bridging the gap Still being Tackling See Tackling Improved health, April 2011 to April Interim LSP Uncertainty between discussed Deprivation Deprivation Together social and 2012 Director regarding economic deprived and Together Plan Plan economic climate affluent areas outcomes in 3% Tackling and tackling most deprived Deprivation Plan levels of wards and the rest being met via main deprivation and of the borough stream budgets poverty

Promote Still being As outlined in the See Healthy Lifestyles Increased life Ongoing PCT. RMBC healthier discussed Community Strategy expectancy, Link4life lifestyles Strategy and the increased PCT and Link4Life

Page 295 Healthy Lifestyles disability free life Budgets Strategy expectancy, increased levels of mental wellbeing Priority Area Six: Effective Communication on Cohesion Effective CC4 Community 1 meeting held every Champions are From April 2011 Principal Competing leadership on the Cohesion quarter able to embed Community priorities community Champions cohesion across Housing and Cohesion Officer cohesion agenda Network the LSP Regeneration established Budgets LSP Community Cohesion Portfolio holder Champion for community Cohesion

Cohesion to be a LSP Big Ticket issue for the LSP

35 Area of Work/ Indicator Action needed Key Milestones Outcomes Timescales & Lead Officer/ Risks and Theme Budgets Agency Contingencies Staff and CC4 Programme of A Cohesion Section of Shared sense of Ongoing from Community Safety This area of work Councillors to activities built into Community Safety responsibility and April 2011 Unit given low priority have a good Community Safety Units Communication mainstreamed Communications due to lack of understanding of Units Strategy drafted cohesion Housing and Officer resources cohesion and Communication activities across Regeneration share Strategy the partnership Budget/ information Community Safety about Community Cohesion issues

Proactive CC1 & CC3 Media scanning A Cohesion Section of Diversity Ongoing from Community Safety This area of work Page 296 strategy of & Develop a Community Safety promoted across April 2011 Unit given low priority communication Cohesion Section Units Communication the borough as a Communications due to lack of and management for Community Strategy drafted positive aspect of Officer resources of potentially Safety Units living and Housing and damaging media Communication working here Regeneration coverage & Strategy Budget/ positive messages Communications communicated Team

Use of social CC 2 & CC4 Assess potential A Cohesion Section of Improve access Ongoing from Community Safety Possibility of networking for further use of Community Safety for people to April 2011 Unit comments or technologies to social networking Units Communication interact and shape Communications remarks that engage and site to promote Strategy drafted cohesion across Housing and Officer might damage interact with cohesion the borough Regeneration community communities Usage and hits Budget/ cohesion and monitored Communications raise tensions Team

36 Proposed Local Community Cohesion Indicators

CCI People from different backgrounds that get on well together - Not currently included in GMP Neighbourhood Survey CC2 Percentage of people who feel that they belong to their neighbourhood - GMP Neighbourhood Survey CC3 CC3 Perceptions that people in the area treat one another with respect and dignity - GMP Neighbourhood Survey CC4 CC 4 Percentage of people who feel they can influence decisions in their locality - GMP Neighbourhood Survey CC5 CC 5 16 to 18 year olds who are not in education, training or employment (NEET) – Single Data Set Requirement CC6 CC 6 Working age people claiming out of work benefits in the worst performing neighbourhoods – Indicator currently under discussion as to usefulness in this context . Page 297

37 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 298 Agenda Item 12 ITEM NO.

COMMITTEE REPORT

Subject: Status: For Information Rochdale Safer Communities Partnership, Safer Communities Plan 2011-14 Report to : Township Committees Date 5/6/7/8 September 2011

Council Date 20 th July 2011 Cabinet Date: 11 th July 2011 Overview and Scrutiny Committee 20 th June 2011 RSCP Board 25 th May 2011

Report of: Email: [email protected] Service Director for Housing & Regeneration Tel: 01706 924987

Cabinet Member: Councillor Martin Burke

Comments from Section 151 Officer Statutory Officers: Monitoring Officer

Key Decision: Yes

Forward Plan General Exception Special Urgency

1 PURPOSE OF REPORT

1.1 The purpose of this report is to make Township Committee members aware of the Safer Communities Partnership’s 2011- 2014 Safer Communities Plan

2. RECOMMENDATIONS

2.1 It is recommended that Townships Committee note the content of this report and the attached 2011-2014 Safer Communities Plan, which has been formally approved for publication the Council on 20 th July 2011.

2.2 In accordance with the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and changes introduced via the Police and Justice Act 2006, the Safer Communities Partnership has produced its three-year Plan, to cover the period from 1st April 2011 to 31 st March 2014, with interim annual updates in 2012 and 2013.

Page 299 3 MAIN TEXT INCLUDING ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED/ CONSULTATION CARRIED OUT 3.1 The Safer Communities Plan sets out the Partnership’s strategic priorities for 2011- 14, which are: • Increasing confidence and satisfaction • Reducing crime • Reducing the harm caused by drugs & alcohol misuse • Preventing and tackling anti social behaviour • Preventing offending by children & young people • Reducing adult reoffending • Developing Community Cohesion

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 3.2 None, production of the Plan and the annual updates are statutory requirements.

CONSULTATION CARRIED OUT 3.3 The Safer Communities Plan has been compiled after taking into consideration: • Consultations with the partnership’s strategic priority groups. • Two strategic away days to understand and review the threats identified by the partnership’s Annual Strategic Threat Assessment and new legislation. • Consultations with the Partnership Business Group (PBG), Township Tactical Tasking Groups (TTGs) and reviewing the priorities raised at the Partners and Community Together (PACT) Panels. • Reviewing the priorities identified in the GMP Neighbourhood Surveys. • The Overview and Scrutiny Committee was consulted as part of this process.

4 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS There are no financial implications for the Council. This report has been written based on current expectations relating to the level of funding to be received. If, due to the current financial climate, funding is further reduced it may have a negative impact on delivery of some or all the strategic priorities set out in the Plan, the level of which can only be determined once the level of funding is finalised

5 LEGAL IMPLICATIONS Production and issue of a Safer Communities Plan is currently a statutory function of the Safer Communities Partnership, which itself is a statutory body derived from the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. Enforcement activity carried out by bodies comprising the Partnership will be undertaken with due regard to the legislation that covers it and in consultation with Legal Services as appropriate

6 PERSONNEL IMPLICATIONS There are no personnel implications

7 RISK ASSESSMENT IMPLICATIONS

7.1 There are no specific risk issues for members to consider arising from this report. Any risks have been considered and negated as part of the approval of the Safer Communities Plan. 7.2 Each strategic priority group within the Safer Communities Partnership conducts a risk assessment which then feeds into the Safer Communities Plan. These are available upon request.

The Safer Communities Plan for 2011-14 is attached. Strategic Threat Assessments and PACT Panel priorities are available via the Community Safety Unit. For further information contact Jeanette Staley Tel: 01706 924987 Page 300

Page 301

FOREWORD

This Plan, our fifth, will build on the successes of our previous ones which have increased community safety. This will not be easy. Although we are very aware that the people in our communities expect and deserve to be safe and feel safe, we are all working through difficult and uncertain times. All of our partners and agencies across the borough are being challenged by capacity and resource issues due to the current financial climate.

It is now that our previous experiences and good practices will bear fruit. We have already gone through a streamlining process to ensure that we are able to tackle safer communities issues both strategically and tactically. Our exemplary partnership and value for money approach to working together exemplifies the government’s belief that effective partnerships play a crucial role in helping to make our communities safer. We will continue to challenge what we do as a partnership so that we become even more effective and be prepared to accept and adjust to new priorities and challenges.

Government aims to help partnerships become more effective. They are doing this by reducing some of the bureaucratic reporting mechanisms that we were previously subject to.

Since 2008 when we began the last plan there has been an overall crime reduction of 22.4%, Anti Social Behaviour is down by 16.5% and criminal damage by 40%. These headline figures are underpinned by the numbers of drug and alcohol users in treatment exceeding targets, adult re-offending being down by 15.4% and numbers of young offenders entering the criminal justice system for the first time falling year-on-year.

The list of our successful reductions across all of the Partnership’s priorities is long. However, we need to make sure that during these times of financial uncertainty we remain particularly alert to maintaining a reduction in community safety issues.

As one of the borough’s priority partnerships we have not only targeted our strategic priorities at crime reduction and public confidence in the criminal justice system; but in supporting the themes of the ‘Pride of Place’ community strategy – People, Place and Prosperity and the Council’s priorities – Protecting vulnerable people, Supporting the economy and Fulfilling statutory obligations. By making a real contribution to these we will be helping to develop safer and cohesive communities throughout the borough.

Chief Superintendent John O’Hare, Greater Manchester Police CHAIR, ROCHDALE SAFER COMMUNITIES PARTNERSHIP

CONTENTS Page 2302

Section Page

1 Introduction 4

2 Priorities and Vision 4

3 National Context 5

4 Local Context including Community Safety in Townships 7

5 The Partnership Structure 9

6 Directing and Resourcing Our Activities 11

7 Delivering Value for Money 12

8 Engaging With our Communities 12

9 Measuring our Performance 13

10 The Partnership’s Priorities:

a. Increasing confidence and satisfaction 14

b. Reducing Crime 17

c. Reducing the harm caused by Drugs & Alcohol Misuse 20

d. Preventing and Tackling Anti Social Behaviour 25

e. Preventing Offending By Children & Young People 27

f. Reducing Adult Re-offending 29

g. Developing Community Cohesion 32

11 Further Reading and Useful Links 34

12 Members of The Partnership 35

13 Glossary of Abbreviations / Terms 36

14 Performance Measures Summary 37

15 Further Information 40

Page3 303

1. INTRODUCTION The Safer Rochdale Plan is the fifth of the Safer Communities Partnership’s three-year strategic documents, the first having been published in 1999. The Plan aims to build on the Partnership’s progress and achievements to date and provide a framework for responding robustly and effectively to the new challenges we will face over the next three years. The Plan has been produced in accordance with the Home Office’s Guidance for Effective Partnership Working, published in October 2007. It has been informed by consultation throughout the life of the previous Safer Rochdale Plan with local organisations and communities, and by a comprehensive Strategic Assessment of local crime, disorder, anti social behaviour, drug and alcohol patterns and trends conducted by our Partnership Analyst. The Plan will have a three-year lifespan and will be reviewed and refreshed on an annual basis, as directed by the Home Office Guidance. The Plan sets out to describe: • The Partnership’s crime, disorder, re-offending, anti social behaviour, drug and alcohol prevention and reduction priorities for the next three years. • The role partner organisations will play in supporting delivery of these priorities, and how this process will be resourced. • How we will contribute to developing community cohesion. • How we will measure and report our performance against the priorities. • How we will continue to engage and involve local people throughout the Borough in identifying new and emerging issues, and in shaping and implementing solutions. 2. PRIORITIES AND VISION The Rochdale Borough Pride Partnership’s Community Strategy ‘Pride of Place’ is focusing on 3 core themes that will drive the work of all priority partnerships. They are: People - promoting healthy, safe and happy lives through prevention and personalisation of care, growing self esteem, confidence and responsibility. Place - creating high quality places where people choose to be. Prosperity - growing enterprise, ambition and the skills to succeed. The Council has 3 core priorities it will focus on during the current financial climate: Protecting Vulnerable People, Supporting the Economy, Fulfilling Statutory Obligations Community safety continues to be a top priority for the Borough’s residents and this is reflected in the themes and priorities above. The Safer Communities Partnership is committed to working in support of achieving these, and has an established complementary vision to: ‘‘Make the Borough a place where everyone is safe and feels safe’’ The Partnership reaffirmed this vision at a Strategic Planning Day in October 2010 where it was agreed that to reduce crime and make our communities safer the partnership would adopt 7 Strategic Priorities for the next 3 years. ‘ Safer Communities Priorities’: 1. Increasing confidence and satisfaction 2. Reducing crime 3. Reducing the harm caused by drugs & alcohol misuse 4. Preventing and tackling anti social behaviour 5. Preventing offending by children & young people 6. Reducing adult reoffending 7. Developing Community Cohesion

Page 4304

3. NATIONAL CONTEXT

Background The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 established Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships (CDRPs), a multi agency approach to tackle crime and disorder. In December 2010 the Home Secretary, Secretary of State for Health, Secretary of State for Justice, Communities Secretary and Secretary of State for Education wrote to the Chairs of Partnerships to: Confirm the Government’s commitment to ‘Safer Communities Partnerships’. Government confirms that these Partnerships will continue to be statutory because believe that “Effective Partnerships play a crucial role in helping to tackle crime and reduce re-offending”. The Crime and Disorder Act, 1998 and in particular Section 17 imposes a duty that requires Safer Communities Partners to embed crime and disorder reduction into their planning, policy and operational day-to-day activity and service delivery as a legal duty. This legal duty is extended to services that are contracted out on behalf of partners. The Police and Justice Act 2006 places additional statutory requirements on the tackling of drugs and alcohol and re-offending. Existing Legislation Plans and Strategies Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships have contributed to a sustained fall in crime. The landscape in which Partnerships work changes constantly and The Home Office reviewed the partnership provisions of the Act during 2004/05 and its recommendations were incorporated into the Police and Justice Act 2006. Some new statutory requirements were introduced for Partnerships, including a range of statutory Minimum Standards and Hallmarks of Effective Practice for Partnerships to benchmark themselves, evaluate and re-profile what they do. Since 1998, a number of other Acts have provided a legislative framework to guide the Partnership’s work, including the Police Reform Act 2002, Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003, Children Act 2004, Housing Act 2004, Domestic Violence Crime and Victims Act 2004, Clean Neighbourhood & Environment Act 2005 and the Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006. The Partnership’s work is given further direction by a range of national policies and strategies, in particular the Government’s three-year crime strategy, of which the 2011-14 version is due to be launched shortly. In the meantime, the Partnership’s work will continue to be guided by the previous version, ‘Cutting Crime – A New Partnership’, which intended to build on the progress already made by Partnerships and ensure that they were able to meet new challenges. The Government identified seven key areas of focus, which were:

1. A stronger focus on tackling serious violence 2. Continued efforts to tackle anti-social behaviour 3. A renewed focus on young people, as victims as well as offenders 4. A new national approach to designing out crime from new products and services 5. Continuing to reduce re-offending, particularly by the most prolific offenders 6. A greater sense of partnership at the national level, for example between Government Departments, Industry and the Voluntary & Community Sector 7. Freeing up local partners, strengthening their performance and building public confidence

Page5 305

Tackling these priorities was supported by a number of delivery plans: • The National Community Safety Plan ‘Saving Lives, Reducing Harm, Protecting the Public’ – an Action Plan for Tackling Violence • Criminal Justice System Strategic Plan • Safe, Sensible and Social – the next steps in the National Alcohol Strategy • Drugs: Protecting Families and Communities New Legislation Plans and Strategies Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill This Bill aims to put the public at the heart of the drive to cut crime, giving communities a say in how crime is tackled in their area and covers five distinct policy areas: police accountability and governance, alcohol licensing, the regulation of protests around Parliament Square, misuse of drugs; and the issue of arrest warrants in respect of private prosecutions for universal jurisdiction offences. The Bill includes the following provisions: • Making the police service more accountable to local people by replacing police authorities with directly elected police and crime commissioners to be introduced from May 2012 • Overhauling the Licensing Act to give more powers to local authorities and police to tackle any premises that are causing problems, doubling the maximum fine for persistent underage sales and permitting local authorities to charge more for late- night licences to contribute towards the cost of policing the late-night economy • Introducing a system of temporary bans for new psychoactive substances, so-called 'legal highs', whilst the health issues are considered by independent experts, to ensure our legislative process can respond quickly to emerging harmful substances • Restoring the right to non-violent protest around Parliament whilst ensuring that Parliament Square remains accessible to all by repealing sections 132-138 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act (SOCPA) 2005 and prohibiting encampments and other disruptive activity on Parliament Square • Amending the process for issuing private arrest warrants for universal jurisdiction offences to ensure that they are issued only where there is a reasonable prospect of successful prosecution Breaking the Cycle (Green Paper 2010) Effective punishment, Rehabilitation and Sentencing of Offenders The green Paper sets out plans for fundamental changes to the criminal justice system, which are considered to be both radical and necessary. Breaking the Cycle focuses on five priority areas: 1. Punishment and Payback 2. Rehabilitation of offenders to reduce crime 3. Payment by Results 4. Sentencing Reform 5. Working with communities to reduce crime

Page 6306

4. LOCAL CONTEXT The Safer Communities Plan covers the next three years, during which the demographic, physical and economical profile of the Borough is expected to undergo a period of significant change. The population of Rochdale Borough is estimated as 206,100 in the 2007 midyear estimates released by the Office for National Statistics (ONS). The population for Rochdale Borough is expected to grow to 225,700 by 2031. Although the age profile is currently younger than the national average, it is expected to get older over forthcoming years, in common with national trends. The make-up of the Borough’s population is one of diversity, with 173,400 (84%) being from a White British ethnic background. People of a Pakistani background make up the largest minority ethnic group, with nearly 17,000 people (8.2%). However, groups with the smallest numbers in the borough tend to exhibit a larger proportional growth, representing increasing diversity. Neighbourhood Renewal Strategy (NRS) areas have a larger proportion of people from minority ethnic backgrounds. There are nearly 9 times as many people from a Bangladeshi background and nearly 4 times as many people from a Pakistani background in NRS areas than in Non-NRS areas. Levels of deprivation are often seen as a contributory factor to the level of crime and disorder. The 2007 Index of Multiple Deprivation show that as a district Rochdale Borough is ranked 25 th most deprived out of 354 local authorities in England. The Borough ranks between 10 th and 44 th most deprived on a range of measures such as income, employment, health, education & skills and crime. Four of the Lower Super Output Areas (measurement areas of approximately 1500 people) in the Borough are in the 50 most deprived in England, with one being the worst in England for employment deprivation and 3rd worst for health and disability deprivation. 20% of working age people in the Borough claimed workless and income support benefits in 2006 (32% in NRS) whilst a quarter of the Borough’s children live in households dependent on benefits (a third in NRS areas). For those in work, wage levels are significantly below the national average. Levels of health deprivation in the Borough are high, and the life expectancy of local people, although improving, is still shorter than the national average in both women and men. Whilst the Borough undoubtedly has a number of concerns that can impact upon community safety, there are also a number of major developments planned or already in progress that have the potential to significantly improve the profile of the Borough and the prospects of its residents. The Kingsway Business Park is expected to bring a vast amount of new business and employment to the Borough, whilst the proposed regeneration of Rochdale Town Centre and Metrolink will breathe new life into the town. The new Middleton Arena and Tesco Extra have transformed the town by adding to the new bus station and refurbished/extended shopping centre. Heywood has also seen major developments with the opening of the first joint service centre in the borough and the new Heywood Sports Village; whilst the Building Schools for the Future programme will provide our children and young people with dramatically improved facilities for their learning and development. Improving community safety is complementary to priorities and vision of ‘Pride of Place’ the Borough’s Community Strategy. It is also an issue for other services and partnerships with a focus on economic development, the environment, housing, health, and children schools & families can all make an important contribution to preventing crime and increasing community safety. The Safer Communities Partnership facilitates this contribution by maintaining strong and effective links with these partnerships, promoting and encouraging effective information sharing, cross-membership of partnerships and joint working on projects and initiatives. It reports to the Local Public Service Board, which is Page7 307

the umbrella body for partnership working in the Borough and has responsibility for ensuring that the strategic objectives in ‘Pride of Place’ are achieved. Outside the Borough, the Partnership is actively represented on a wide range of Greater Manchester and regional partnerships and groups with a crime, disorder, drugs and alcohol agenda. Membership of such groups enables the Partnership to contribute to jointly developed initiatives with neighbouring Partnerships and to take advantage of opportunities to learn from and adopt best practice of leaders in particular areas of work. The Partnership’s approach to delivering its priorities at a Township level is well established. Community Safety, Police and practitioners from other partner agencies are structured on individual Township basis’ and are ideally placed to work in partnership with local people, forums and agencies to develop action plans to reduce identified crime, disorder, anti social behaviour and the harm caused by drugs and alcohol. Community Safety in Townships Tactical Tasking Groups (TTGs) Each Township has a Tactical Tasking Group which is integral to the Partnership’s structure. Meeting every six weeks and on an as required basis to tackle priorities; they operate as a multi agency sub group of the Rochdale Safer Communities Partnership (RSCP) under the strategic and operational direction of the Partnership Business Group (PBG) to: 1. Contribute to the delivery of the aims and objectives of the ‘Safer Communities Plan’. 2. Act as a community consultation conduit to ward based Partners and Community Together Panels and provide a means of access for communities on behalf of the overall Strategic Group. 3. Contribute to the delivery of the wider Township Action Plans. 4. Promote good practice and public reassurance to the wider community and agencies via the PBG and the Feeling Safer Strategic Priority Group. Partner and Community Together Panels (PACTs) The Police, Community Safety Unit and other partner agencies meet monthly with members of the community to agree crime and justice priorities. These meetings are about finding local solutions to local problems and providing an opportunity for members of the public to raise concerns or comments directly with the police, local authority and other officers. PACT Panel priorities are submitted to the Tactical Tasking Groups and Partnership Business Group for inclusion in their action plans. Examples: Recent projects and initiatives implemented at Township level to tackle priorities raised by the Partnership Business Group via the TTGs and the community through the PACT Panels have included: • Tackling off-road biking through, gating schemes, enforcement and signage. • Planning, development, implementation and maintenance of static and portable CCTV. • Home security projects. • Car crime reduction initiatives. • Communication campaigns.

Page 8308

5. THE PARTNERSHIP STRUCTURE

Where we’ve come from Rochdale Safer Communities Partnership (RSCP) has been in existence since October 2000, when the Community Safety, Drug Action and Youth Offending Teams were merged to form one fully integrated body, one of the first of its kind in the country. The Partnership has continually improved and developed its business practices over the years and carries out a continuous fitness check against the new National Standards and Hallmarks through an Improvement Board and rolling action plan. Current structure The Partnership is currently chaired by Chief Superintendent John O’Hare, the Divisional Police Commander and comprises representatives from the six ‘responsible authorities’, i.e. the Council, Fire and Rescue Authority, National Health Service, Police, Police Authority and Probation Trust. Over 30 other public and third sector bodies with a stake in improving community safety in the Borough are invited to attend the Partnership and its thematic groups. Membership of the strategic board is listed in Section 13. The main Partnership Board, which meets quarterly, approves Partnership policy, oversees its activities and is accountable for its performance. It is supported by a number of groups with responsibilities for the delivery of strategic priorities, monitoring its performance and commissioning of services and projects. Delivering our Priorities Delivery of the Partnership’s Strategic Priorities is the responsibility of five multi-agency Priority Groups*, whose work is aided and complemented by a range of thematic groups such as the Inter-Agency Domestic Violence Forum and the Multi-Agency Race and Hate Forum. The structure diagram on the next page details how the various strategic, performance, delivery and commissioning functions fit together and explains their reporting relationships. It also highlights the Partnership’s important relationship with the Local Criminal Justice Group, the local body charged with responsibility for ensuring the effective delivery, development and publicity of the Criminal Justice System in the Borough. *Delivery of each of our Strategic Priorities is described in greater detail in Section 10 of this document.

Page9 309

Local Public Service Board (Quarterly)

Strategic Rochdale Rochdale Safer Communities Partnership Board (Quarterly) Local Criminal Justice Links to Group (Bi-monthly)

Partnership Performance and Crime Partnership Improvement Board Commissioning Board (Quarterly) (Bi-monthly)

Partnership Business Group Urgent (as required) Strategic Priority Groups (Quarterly) Tactical 6-weekly Community Tensions Group & Thematic Groups

Township Safer Communities Reducing Crime and Adult Re-offending

Page 310 DV Forum Heywood Middleton Pennines Rochdale MARHF Tactical Tasking Tactical Tasking Tactical Tasking Tactical Tasking Group 6-weekly Group 6-weekly Group 6-weekly Group 6-weekly Reducing the Harm caused by Drugs & Alcohol

Priority and Commissioning Group Ward PACT Panels Ward PACT Panels Ward PACT Panels Ward PACT Panels Young People, Crime, Adult Drug Treatment, (Monthly) (Monthly) (Monthly) (Monthly)

KEY Preventing and Tackling Anti Social Behaviour Overseeing groups - The Performance Board oversees performance and commissions crime reduction ASBRAC Cells initiatives Case Intervention Group Cells Strategic Priority Groups; also have thematic groups below them ASBO Threshold Panel Operational Township Tactical Tasking Groups (TTGs) will: Concentrate on Reducing Crime and Anti Social Behaviour and Sections of The PBG Preventing Offending by the Performance Management Framework Has Tactical & Strategic Children & Young People Cells Responsibilities at both

The Community Tensions Group will only be operated in times of Urgent Borough-wide and

need, ongoing tensions will be monitored and dealt with by the PBG Township levels Developing Community Cohesion Advisory role to all LSP Priority Partnerships Background All of these groups are borough-wide and strategic Preventing Violent Extremism Group Background All of these groups are operational and township focused “Increasing Confidence and Satisfaction is the responsibility of all operational and strategic groups” 10

6. DIRECTING AND RESOURCING OUR ACTIVITIES The Partnership Performance & Crime Commissioning Board The Partnership’s performance against its priorities is rigorously monitored by the Board; its membership comprises the Chair and Vice Chair of the Partnership, the Cabinet Portfolio Holder with responsibility for community safety and the Safer Communities Manager. This group has the remit to scrutinise performance and direct the Partnership Business Group or specific Priority Groups to implement corrective action where data indicates there is risk of performance targets not being achieved. The Board is responsible for ensuring that planned outcomes are achieved and targets are met. They do this by; • Overseeing and directing mainstream resources. • Allocating and monitoring the use of external funds specifically for safer communities’ activity. • Robustly monitoring and challenging the work of the strategic priority and thematic groups of the Partnership. Reducing the Harm caused by Drugs & Alcohol Priority and Commissioning Group This strategic priority group performs a similar function in allocating funds received from The Department of Health and The Home Office to schemes and projects to address key local strategic priorities, and in accordance with Government’s drive to make large-scale improvements in drugs services across the country. The Partnership Business Group (PBG) – is a multi-agency action group. It meets every six weeks and is designed to deliver timely and effective responses to tackle new and emerging crime and disorder issues outside of the scope of the strategic priority group’s annual action plans. The PBG uses a mix of professional crime mapping, analysis and intelligence management to inform implementation of rapid responses to problems in ‘hot- spot’ areas. Mainstream resources – much activity to reduce the incidence of crime, disorder, Anti Social Behaviour, drugs and alcohol related activity and supporting the victims of crime is already the responsibility of key public sector agencies such as: • Greater Manchester Police • Greater Manchester Probation Trust • Key services of Rochdale Council e.g. Housing and Regeneration, Children’s Social Care, Learners and Young People, Schools, Adult Care, Environmental Management Services • Primary Care Trust / Pennine Care Mental Health and Acute Trusts • Greater Manchester Fire and Rescue Service • Rochdale Boroughwide Housing • Rochdale Victim Support & Witness Service • Rochdale Council for Voluntary Service (RCVS) The commissioning bodies ensure that these and other agencies utilise the mainstream funds at their disposal to deliver schemes and projects that address issues of greatest local priority within the community safety agenda. They may also influence the redirection of these resources as emerging national and local changes dictate.

Page11 311

Article I. 7. DELIVERING VALUE FOR MONEY The Partnership is committed to ensuring that the funds it is allocated each year are used to deliver services that, as well as contributing to reduced crime, disorder and substance misuse in the Borough, are economical, efficient and effective. The Partnership’s business processes and commissioning processes from specialist agencies and services are continually reviewed and updated. This ensures that the Partnership maintains the standards identified in the 2007 value for money review which described the Partnership as ‘an exemplar partnership’ and awarded a ‘green’ rating for all of the elements assessed in the review.

8. ENGAGING WITH OUR COMMUNITIES Engaging and involving local people is crucial to the success of any strategy to prevent and tackle crime and disorder, drug and alcohol misuse. Local people know what the issues are in their neighbourhood and, with appropriate support from agencies and services, can make a major contribution to setting priorities, putting solutions in place and ensuring that their impact is sustained. The Partnership conducts a wide range of public consultations. Engagement undertaken with the community by partners throughout the year includes: • Partners and Communities Together (PACT) meetings in Wards across the Borough (see also Page 8) • Open forums at Township meetings • Area Forums in each of the 22 Neighbourhood Renewal Strategy Areas • Crime and anti-social behaviour surgeries in communities around the Borough • Estate walkabouts where tenants and residents on Council estates can raise and discuss concerns directly with partner agencies. These opportunities for face-to-face engagement with local people are currently supplemented by quarterly neighbourhood surveys conducted by Greater Manchester Police. These surveys gauge the levels of satisfaction and confidence of local residents in the efforts of partners to tackle crime and disorder, and in their neighbourhood and the Borough as a safe place to live and go about their business

Staff of partner agencies also attend a wide range of public events throughout the year, to increase awareness and understanding of community safety and criminal justice issues, give practical crime prevention advice and engage local people in identifying problems and the solutions to them.

Page12 312

9. MEASURING OUR PERFORMANCE The Partnership has developed a comprehensive and effective Performance Management Framework. This enables us to maintain a close watch on our performance against our targets, compare our progress with that of Partnerships in similar Boroughs across the country, and ensure that we take robust action when performance falls short of what is required to meet our objectives.

The performance measurement and reporting landscape has changed significantly for Partnerships since the change in Government in 2010. The Coalition intends to reduce the reporting burden upon local Partnerships, giving them greater freedom to set performance measures that most accurately reflect the issues of greatest importance in their Borough. The Public Service Agreements and National Indicator Set introduced by the previous Government have been abolished, and for 2011 -12 and beyond, the Partnership has been working on establishment of an updated set of locally-derived indicators and targets. These are set out in each of the sections of this Plan that describe our Strategic Priorities.

A summary of how we will measure our performance against our strategic priorities is shown in Section 14 on pages 37 and 38.

Page13 313

10 A. INCREASING CONFIDENCE AND SATISFACTION This Priority group was known in the previous Safer Communities Plan as Building and Promoting Safer Communities and has been re-titled in order to reflect the local priorities of the Partnership. The Feeling Safer Priority Group’s focus is ensuring that local people are regularly and accurately informed about the work of the Partnership and the impact it is having on levels of crime and anti-social behaviour across the Borough, and in their neighbourhoods. We are committed to engaging local people in identifying the priorities that need addressing in their area and involving them in developing and implementing solutions. In this section we will tell you what we have been doing to improve public confidence and satisfaction of dealing with crime and anti social behaviour that matter in the community, what we have achieved, and what we intend to do to take this work further over the next three years. What we’ve been doing 1. Producing and implementing a toolkit in order to standardise Partners and Communities Together (PACT) meetings in wards across the Borough. 2. Supporting the Government’s Neighbourhood Crime and Justice agenda by implementing different aspects of the Government programme to increase public confidence Justice Seen, Justice Done. 3. Recruiting over 100 Community Crime Fighters across the borough with the aim of developing stronger links between crime-fighting agencies and the communities they serve. Community Crime Fighters are members of the public who are already actively involved in their communities and want to do or know more. 4. Implementing a programme of ‘Weeks of Action’ to promote awareness, engage with the public and reduce crime and disorder in identified ‘hot spot’ areas. Colleagues from a range of partner agencies work together with local people to tackle crime, anti-social behaviour and environmental issues, and increase public confidence 5. Developed and implemented Partnership Communications Strategy aligning communications to support the Partnership’s priorities and key areas for improvement. 6. Undertaking a Community Cohesion self assessment that has identified the Borough’s priorities and will inform a new Community Cohesion strategy 7. Working closely with other AGMA boroughs and GMP on national and city region PR and marketing campaigns for example EndtheFear, Safe4Summer, Treacle and Anti- social behaviour. 8. Developing ongoing work schedules with Probation on the Community Payback initiative under the Neighbourhood Crime and Justice agenda 9. Increasing the community’s knowledge in regards to community sentencing. Colleagues in probation and local magistrates have delivered a series of workshops known as ‘Local Crime and Community Sentences’ to various community groups with the aim of increasing the knowledge and understanding of community sentences. 10. Embedding communications and customer service practices into everybody’s job role to improve the quality of local services offered by agencies within the Partnership. 11. Improved promotion of reporting mechanisms relating to crime and anti-social behaviour at the same time enhancing customer knowledge of service provision and how to access it.

Page14 314

12. Gained AGMA recognition for Safe4Summer’s local communications campaign primarily for embedding Safe4Summer safety messages into a consolidated youth provision magazine. This approach was recommended as an example of good practice. 13. Ongoing and regular promotion of crime prevention advice based on immediate or imminent crime threats for example burglary, safer drinking practices. 14. Successful in gaining commitment and support for delivering targeted, research based, cost effective communications for example delivering the minimum standards in anti- social behaviour hotspots. As well as the achievements above, the Feeling Safer Group’s successes are evident amongst the other strategic priority groups. Progress since 2008 15. The number of accidental dwelling fires has risen slightly in 2010/11 though overall the number has fallen from 302 in 2006 to 200 in 2011 16. Numbers of primary fires have continued to fall, from 651 in 2009/10 to 584 in 2010/11 17. 62.5% of local people feel that the police and council are dealing with the issues that matter most to them, up from 59.5% in 2009/10 18. 9.7% of people feel there are high levels of anti-social behaviour in their area, down from 16.2% in 2009/10 19. 67.9% of local people feel confident that the police and council understand their concerns about crime and anti-social behaviour, up from 58.4% in 2009/10 20. 22.5% of people feel that drug use or dealing is a problem in their area, compared with 28.8% in 2009/10 21. 14.9% of people feel that drunk or rowdy behaviour is a problem in their area, compared with 24.1% in 2009/10 Our Priorities for 2011-2014 22. To provide better and more co-ordinated information on the Criminal Justice System (CJS) to local communities and staff working in the CJS through increased consultation and access to performance data. 23. To work with the Police and Crime Commissioners and the local community to establish the crime and anti-social behaviour priorities that matter most locally. 24. Ensuring the increased provision of accurate and timely information to local people about what is being done to tackle crime and anti-social behaviour, in order to gain public co-operation to make real changes in their communities. 25. We will continue to promote the range of ways that citizens can get involved in keeping their neighbourhoods safe and encourage them to do so. 26. We will develop and support our active citizens who are members of neighbourhood watch schemes or Community Crime Fighters by establishing two-way communication processes and enlist their help to disseminate community safety messages to the wider community. 27. In line with the Policing Bill we will establish joint patrols with community members, the police and partners within neighbourhoods. 28. Support the initiative to encourage more people to become members of independent advisory groups to sign neighbourhood agreements which set out local commitments from services and communities in how they plan to tackle crime and ASB together. This allows communities to have more of a say in how money is spent and how offenders make amends. Page15 315

29. Build on approaches which allow communities to influence the type of work completed by offenders on Community Payback. 30. Give more victims the opportunity to make personal statements to the court. 31. Increase the use of restorative justice for appropriate crimes as a way of improving victim satisfaction 32. Publish more local data on sentencing to increase the degree to which the public hold the justice system to account 33. Explore opportunities for greater community involvement in community justice approaches 34. Support the Government’s intention to publish more data at local level so that communities can see the effectiveness of their Youth Offending Team and use this information to inform and shape local priorities. 35. Continuing to work in partnership across the AGMA region on joint PR and marketing campaigns to achieve efficiency savings and maximum impact. 36. We will promote and encourage local communities to report crime through the various different mechanisms emphasising the help and support available to victims. 37. We will ensure that customer satisfaction is at the heart of all service providers’ work in order to improve public confidence in agencies and the criminal justice system overall. 38. We will promote that the Partnership is listening and reacting to community concerns on crime and disorder through different communication channels. 39. We will continue to focus on delivering targeted, research based and cost effective communications at a local level.

Our performance measures for increasing Confidence and Satisfaction (CS)

CS 1 To increase the percentage of people who agree that the Police and Council are dealing with the anti-social behaviour and crime issues that matter to people in their local area CS 2 To increase the percentage of people who feel safe outside in their local area during the day and at night CS 3 Increase the number of people who feel they can influence decisions made in their area CS 4 Percentage of Local Crime Community Sentence participants who feel that prison is no longer an appropriate punishment 10 B. REDUCING CRIME

Page16 316

10 B. REDUCING CRIME In this section we will tell you how we have performed during the previous Safer Communities Plan. We describe some of the measures we have put in place and detail how we intend to deal with ongoing and emerging crime threats over the next three years. Overall crime has fallen by 14.1% since 2007/08 and this is supported by two thirds of the public thinking that the police and council are doing a good job to tackle crime.

What we’ve been doing 1. Working in partnership to prioritise the most prolific offenders in the Borough, who are responsible for a disproportionate number of crimes 2. Running a number of pro-active police operations both overt and covert, using intelligence, analysis and ‘problem profiles’ of hot-spot areas to identify key targets and curtail their activities e.g. Police Operations targeting domestic burglary. 3. Running a number of Partnership promotional initiatives to a wide range of audiences to raise awareness of different types of crime and provide advice on how to guard against them e.g. travel/agents, businesses and schools 4. Carrying out crime prevention surveys in the home and for local services and businesses. 5. Continued the development of the Alleygating project raising the number of schemes completed from 184 to 432 raising the number of homes benefiting from 2500 to 9,618. The number of gates installed to achieve this is 1,165. 6. We have set up a targeted monthly home security project in hotspot areas for burglary. 10 projects have been carried out visiting 2,940 homes all of which received home security advice and literature. Of these 674 received a home security survey resulting in 575 homes receiving home security improvements and 468 received SmartWater property marking. All of these services were free of charge. 7. Reviewed the Partnership Business Group to put in place rapid responses to emerging crime issues 8. Carrying out a series of joint operations to address specific issues such as night-time violent crime in town centres. 9. Implementing and enforcing Acceptable Behaviour Schemes covering licensed premises in our town centres, to minimise alcohol-related disorder and increase customer confidence 10. Decoy vehicles fitted with CCTV have been deployed regularly to catch car thieves and provide graphic evidence of a crime. 11. A Knife Arch has been used in the town centre to deter people from carrying knives. 12. Trading Standards and the Doorstep Crime Group have: a. Continued to conduct test purchases to detect under age sales e.g. knives, alcohol, fireworks. b. Routinely targeted second hand sales outlets to identify stolen property and offenders. c. Continued the ongoing identification of areas suitable for and implementing of “No Cold Calling” zones d. Developed a theatre group that delivers information via regular performances to elderly and vulnerable people regarding the prevention of doorstep crime.

Page17 317

13. Youth Service has delivered a series of presentations to young people to tackle issues around guns, gangs and knives. 14. Continuing to carry out ‘safe plate’ initiatives throughout the Borough to reduce the number of thefts of number plates, reduce vehicle cloning and ensuring false vehicles are not used for crime. 15. Established and launched the Omega Women’s Centre, providing a wide range of advice, support and advocacy services for victims of domestic violence 16. Successfully bid to the Home Office to establish a specialist domestic violence court, providing victims with added support and reassurance as they pursue cases against perpetrators through the criminal justice system

Progress since 2008 17. The Partnership has, like most others across the country, been operating in a difficult climate in terms of reducing crime, particularly serious violent crime and acquisitive crime such as burglary. In Rochdale, however, we have achieved the following during the past three years: a. Crime overall fell by 22.4% from 2007/08 to 2010/11 b. Serious acquisitive crimes, including burglary, robbery and vehicle crimes, fell by 20.5% from 2007/08 to 2010/11. However, the rate of reduction during 2010/11 has been affected by increased volumes of burglary dwelling. An action plan has been put in place to deal with this and it will remain a high priority for the Partnership during 2011/12. c. After increases in 2008/09 and 2009/10, the concerted efforts of partners have resulted in a reduction of over 39% in serious violent crime during 2010/11, the most significant reduction in Greater Manchester. d. The number of domestic violence cases identified as repeat victimisation has fallen during 2010/11 from 25% to 13.9%, reflecting the positive work of partners to provide effective packages of support to victims

Our priorities and plans for 2011-14 18. Implement specific action plans to reduce burglary, vehicle crime and violent crime by carrying out actions such as: a. Promote ‘Park Mark’ security standard accreditation for car parks to support the borough regeneration e.g. Metrolink and Park and Ride b. Continuing to carry out ‘safe plate’ initiatives throughout the Borough c. Focus Alleygating projects to tackle crime and disorder problems in hotspot areas across the borough e.g. through targeted gating orders d. Evaluate the home security project and align it with the new 6-weekly PBG cycle. e. Evaluate SmartWater and promote its use in hotspot areas to deter crime f. Continuing the work of the Multi-agency Doorstep Crime Action Group and identify new ‘No Cold Calling’ zones to reduce incidents of door step crime. g. Continue to rollout the Junior CrimeFighter Scheme across all primary schools. h. Carry out a fit for purpose review of Operation Aegis and set up a separate GMP Town Centre Unit to tackle both the day and nigh time economies. i. Work with regeneration service providers and the Town Centre Management to design out town centre crime.

Page18 318

j. A specialist Domestic Violence Court has just been established and will lead to improved outcomes for victims of domestic abuse. k. Review the Partnership’s capacity to deliver multi agency ‘Weeks of Action’. l. Evaluate the pilot use of CCTV systems in taxis. m. Work to support Rochdale Boroughwide Housing’s 5 year security plan to upgrade the security of all homes including alarms. n. Engage Registered Social Landlords to encourage them where necessary to upgrade the security of their properties. o. Increase awareness of domestic violence issues amongst young people by ensuring that all Year 11 pupils have access to a healthy relationships course p. Secure funding to deliver brief interventions courses and weekly support sessions for victims of DV who have alcohol and / or mental health problems

Our performance measures for Reducing Crime (RC)

RC 1 Reduce the total volume of recorded crime in the Borough

RC 2 Reduce the number of serious acquisitive crimes recorded in the Borough

RC 3 Reduce the number of serious violent crimes recorded in the Borough

RC 4 Reduce the number of thefts recorded in the Borough

RC 5 Reduce the number of domestic burglaries recorded in the Borough

RC 6 Reduce the number of vehicle crimes recorded in the Borough

RC 7 Reduce the level of repeat victimisation in DV cases referred to MARAC

RC 8 Reduce the number of deliberate primary fires recorded in the Borough

Page19 319

10 C. REDUCING THE HARM CAUSED BY DRUGS AND ALCOHOL

Drugs Illegal drugs cause harm to individuals, families and communities, with the most vulnerable and deprived often being the hardest hit. Drug misuse impacts on every aspect of life including health, social issues, the economy and crime. There has been significant progress in recent years, both nationally and in the Borough with the focus shifting towards recovery. The Partnership, like the Government, is working towards seeing fewer people experimenting with illicit drugs whilst at the same time helping more of those that do, enter treatment services for help. Equally we are committed to seeing communities free from the problems and fear caused by drug-related crime and anti-social behaviour. In 1998 the government produced the 10 year Drug Strategy which had retention at its core. One of its key aims was to double the number, and retain those numbers of drug users, in treatment. This target was exceeded and we are now in a strong position to work with this population by implementing the new Drug Strategy 2010 launched by the coalition government in December 2010. This new strategy identifies a welcomed and ambitious move away from retention in treatment and towards a recovery and outcome focused treatment system with key objectives structured around 3 fundamental themes; 1. Reducing demand – creating an environment where the vast majority of people who have never taken drugs continue to resist any pressures to do so whilst working with those who are using illicit substances to access treatment. 2. Restricting supply – by working closely with the National Crime Agency and UK Border Agency on a national and international level to fight organised crime; and working with criminal justice initiatives on a local level to combat street based supply chains. 3. Building recovery in communities – reshape our treatment system and putting the goal of recovery at the heart of all that we do. Working with the ‘whole person’ to address issues such as family, housing, benefits and employment. We will endeavour to put service users at the centre of all positive change within our treatment system making sure that the treatment offered is what the service user needs and wants. Recovery involves 3 overarching principles – wellbeing, citizenship and freedom from dependence, hence we will work closely with our providers and partners to build a system that is fit for purpose and best value for money. What we’ve been doing 1. Implemented a 3 year Commissioning Strategy Services are reviewed, new specifications developed and re-tendered where appropriate, to ensure we are meeting local needs and achieving best value. We have reviewed and completed the tendering process for Structured Day Care (now psychosocial), prescribing, GP Shared Care and young peoples treatment services. The new contracts are to be more recovery and outcome focused. 2. Commissioned a new psychosocial intervention Service (REACH Project) that provides treatment to all drug (including stimulants and cannabis) users. The service specifically targets priority groups (e.g. Offenders and 18 – 24 year olds) who have not been entering into traditional treatment services, either because it was not appropriate or was not appealing. Page20 320

3. In partnership with Supporting People and Acorn we successfully secured funding for residential property for abstinent clients that will support the development of a recovering community 4. Improved referral pathways by raising awareness of alternative treatments available locally, promoting services and making links with General Practitioners and wrap around services, working with pharmacies to encourage signposting into treatment 5. Worked to ensure that all young people requiring a specialist service receive a service that is timely, effective and responsive to individual need 6. Improved treatment effectiveness to reduce the numbers of unplanned exits and improved outcomes for children and young people 7. Improved the ‘DNA’ scheme, where the Outreach Team make every effort to make contact clients who fail to attend treatment services and try to re-engage them. 8. Implemented the Integrated Drug Treatment System (IDTS) at Buckley Hall 9. The Outreach Team have become the Single Point of Contact and relocated to new premises, where they can provide direct access to substance users, provide a triage service and refer into the most appropriate treatment programmes available 10. Piloted two motivational programmes that promote recovery and abstinence. 11. Produced a ‘Treatment Service Directory’ which allows the public and front line providers to identify all the treatment options available in the borough 12. Worked with partners to develop the Integrated Offender Management (IOM) scheme (Spotlight) to ensure a rapid response to individuals who may be at risk of re- offending 13. We have promoted Restriction on Bail (ROB) orders and this has seen a significant increase in the number of eligible clients being given ROB 14. The Arrest Referral team, are doing more assertive outreach work with known drug (and alcohol) users in custody, who are not drug tested positive.

Progress since 2008 15. LAA Stretch Target for numbers of schools with Healthy Schools status achieved 16. Increased the numbers of Problematic Drug Users in Effective Treatment, and are ahead of target to achieve (NI40) 17. Reduced the percentage of the public who perceive drug use or dealing to be a problem in their area to 22.5% from 28.8% (NI 42) 18. Reduced the rate of drug related offending 19. Over 90% of Problematic Drug Users are receiving effective treatment 20. We have improved planned discharges to around 40% 21. We have increased the number of clients successfully completing Community Detox treatment 22. The Integrated Drug Treatment System (IDTS) has been fully implemented at Buckley Hall Prison. 23. The Drug Intervention Programme has continued to improve with an average of 86% of Positive drug tests being assessed by a Drugs worker, 100% of those needing further intervention being taken onto the caseload and 97% of those commencing treatment.

Page21 321

Our priorities for 2011-14 24. Increase the number of drugs users successfully completing treatment 25. Promote more constructive and viable treatment options for those in long term treatment, usually 2-4 years+ 26. Integrate ‘recovering communities’ and ‘outcome focused’ models into current treatment delivery, and the development of ‘recovery capital’ within local communities 27. Ensure services improve ties with housing, education and employment agencies 28. Ensure volunteering and training opportunities are available for ex drug & alcohol users seeking employment and personal development. 29. Continue to develop pathways for Black Asian Minority Ethnics (BAME) into treatment services 30. Develop multi-agency family focused strategies to support and safeguard parental substance users and their children 31. Reduce the level of substance misuse by young people 32. Increase the number of young people receiving effective treatment interventions 33. Work to increase the number of Planned Discharges and positive outcomes following treatment interventions. 34. Monitor the number of young people attending A+E who are misusing substances and ensure the referrals are followed up and managed. 35. Increase the engagement of substance misusing offenders, through enforcement and proactive engagement activity 36. Develop the Integrated Drug Treatment System at Buckley Hall by:- Improving client perception of treatment; Extending the range of treatment options available 37. Reduce re-offending by providing more assertive engagement of those people presenting in custody who have committed offences related to their substance misuse. 38. Implement effective transitional arrangements from young people to adult services 39. Work with Children Social Care and Looked After Children Services to improve screening for drugs and alcohol to allow earlier intervention 40. Develop monitoring systems to evaluate substance misuse history for those accessing adult services who formerly attended a young persons treatment service 41. Develop smarter ways of working with partners to ensure resources are appropriately targeted where need is greatest 42. Redefine our criminal justice based services given the changes to custody and court facilities in the Borough.

Our performance measures for reducing the harm caused by Drugs & Alcohol (DA)

DA 1 Increase the number of problematic drug users ( crack cocaine or opiates) recorded as being in effective treatment (NB: From 2012/13 subject to inclusion in the Public Health Outcomes Framework) DA 2 Increase the number of problem drug users (all types) recorded as being in effective treatment DA 3 Increase the percentage of problem drug users and all drug users successfully completing treatment DA 4 Reduce the percentage of the public who perceive drug use or dealing to be a

Page22 322

problem in their area DA 5 Reduce the rate of drug-related offending DA 6 Increase the number of substance misusing Young People to have received an effective treatment interventions Alcohol Alcohol is part of our culture in the UK often playing a recreational role in leisure, relaxation and social occasions. The majority of adults, up to 90% drink alcohol sensibly and alcohol is consumed during many occasions with no problems. However there are both adults and young people in the population who drink alcohol in excess of the recommended limits, misuse alcohol or become dependent upon alcohol. The risks and harms associated with alcohol are wide ranging, with the potential to cause trouble and misery for individuals, families and communities. Excessive drinking can lead to a wide range of alcohol related harms, including:- physical harms, accidents and injuries; violence, mental health problems, unwanted pregnancy, increased crime and disorder; antisocial behaviour; relationship and family breakdowns, job loss etc In 2009 the Rochdale Safer Communities Partnership launched a new 3 year Alcohol Strategy. The strategy aims to reduce alcohol related harm in Rochdale borough by: 1. Promoting safe, sensible and social drinking 2. Reducing alcohol-related ill health 3. Ensuring provision of appropriate, high quality treatment and support services that are accessible and responsive to the needs of clients who are alcohol dependent or who have alcohol-related problems 4. Reducing alcohol related crime and disorder and protecting communities 5. Protecting children and young people from alcohol-related risks and harms What we’ve been doing 6. In Partnership with the Probation Service we have fully Implemented Alcohol Treatment Requirement Orders 7. We have developed and adopted a new 3 year local Alcohol Strategy 8. Provided training to front line staff on identification and referral procedures 9. Held several promotional campaigns (eg Christmas, Awareness weeks and during the World Cup) to raise awareness of Alcohol related Harm. 10. Keyworkers are now providing brief interventions in Police Custody Suites for clients where alcohol is identified as an issue. 11. Work at A & E to screen attendees for alcohol use is working well and a significant number of clients are being given enhanced interventions or being referred to specialist treatment. 12. Developed a Multi Agency Licensing Forum 13. Developed the Embrace scheme working with domestic abuse where alcohol is a factor Progress since 2008 14. LAA Stretch Target for numbers in alcohol treatment exceeded

Page23 323

15. Reduced the Rate of increase on hospital related admissions from 12% increase to currently a 4% increase 16. Reduced the percentage of people who perceive drunk or rowdy behaviour to be a problem in their area to 14.9% from 24.1% (NI 41) 17. The Alcohol Arrest Referral scheme was implemented in April 2010 and at end December over 50 brief interventions had been completed in custody and 16 clients have successfully engaged in Tier 3 treatment 18. Alcohol Treatment Requirement order have been very successful, with 34 new orders in 2010 and achieving an 83% success rate Our priorities for 2011-14 19. Increasing the number of offenders receiving a treatment service for their alcohol problem 20. Utilising the Alcohol Arrest Referral and Alcohol Treatment Requirement schemes to target offenders and repeat offenders 21. Work closely with prisons to develop in prison interventions, referral to specialist services and follow up from CDOT on prison release. 22. Continue to promote an ethos of responsible retailing through licensing measures and successful schemes such as ‘Best Bar None’ and ‘Responsible Retailer Scheme’ 23. Reduce the number of anti social behaviour incidents and serious violent crimes recorded with alcohol markers 24. Promoting the potential harms of alcohol misuse within the general public and across partners 25. Conduct an alcohol Needs Assessment to identify gaps in service provision 26. Slowing the growth of the number of alcohol related hospital admissions NI 39 by: a. front line services to reduce alcohol related risk of harm b. Target ‘frequent flyers’ that repeatedly present at A &E and work with clients who need intensive support. c. Developing a robust monitoring system to measure the numbers of screening and brief interventions delivered across different settings

Our performance measures for reducing the harm caused by Drugs & Alcohol (DA)

DA 7 Increase the number of clients to have received an effective treatment intervention for alcohol misuse DA 8 Reduce the percentage of people who perceive drunk or rowdy behaviour to be a problem in their area DA 9 Reduce the rate of increase in hospital admissions per 100,000 for alcohol related harm (NB: From 2012/13 subject to inclusion in the Public Health Outcomes Framework) DA 10 Reduce the number of alcohol specific hospital admissions

Page24 324

10 D. PREVENTING AND TACKLING ANTI SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR This priority was formerly knows as ‘Building Respect in Communities’ and was re-titled to reflect the greater focus of the Government on adopting the triple track approach of Prevention, Intervention and Enforcement when addressing issues of anti social behaviour in our communities. Tackling anti social behaviour continues to be a major priority for local people, who regularly put it at the top of their list of things they want the Partnership to address. Whilst anti social behaviour can have different definitions and take on different forms, it is fundamentally an issue that affects all communities, people, property and the local environment. What we’ve been doing 1. Encouraged reporting of anti social behaviour and made access to the service easier by introducing an online reporting system www.rochdale.gov.uk/reportasb and telephone reporting line 0845 121 2978. 2. Strengthened our commitment to residents of the Borough through the introduction of anti social behaviour minimum standards, thereby ensuring that our response is both consistent and robust. 3. Appointed a specialist Anti Social Behaviour Victims’ Champion to engage and support the most vulnerable victims. 4. Established a Multi Agency Risk Assessment Conference process to ensure that all necessary actions are in place to support highly vulnerable victims of anti social behaviour. 5. Introduced a Risk Assessment Matrix to assist in the identification of vulnerabilities when supporting victims and witnesses of anti social behaviour. 6. Continued to co-ordinate the multi-agency Case Intervention Group to set up programmes of preventative action for over 300 (since the 2010 plan update) individuals at risk of involvement in anti social behaviour. 7. Provided a range of schemes across the Borough to divert young people at risk of involvement in anti social behaviour, including Greater Manchester seasonal initiatives such as Safe 4 Summer and Operation Treacle (fireworks campaign). 8. Increased our activities in the Private Rented Sector Housing including developing protocols to enable appropriate action to be taken against tenants and landlords. 9. Established three further Family Intervention Projects to provide intensive support to families under the remit of Youth Crime, Women Offenders and Child Poverty. 10. Continued to provide specialist Parenting Officer to engage the most hard-to-reach families and provide them with support on parenting issues. 11. Continued to provide funding for a cross-tenure Legal Services and Enforcement Team, who undertake enforcement work to address issues of anti social behaviour across the Borough. 12. Introduced a Stop and Account scheme in partnership with Greater Manchester Police to tackle low level anti social behaviour involving young people. 13. Using enforcement tools such as ASBOs (Anti Social Behaviour Orders), ABCs (Acceptable Behaviour Contracts), Parenting Orders, Injunctions and Dispersal Orders to address the behaviour of individuals and groups for whom preventative measures have not been successful. 14. Introduced a number of new powers to assist in tackling and preventing anti social behaviour, including Drink Banning Order, Habitual Drunkard Orders and Family Intervention tenancies.

Page25 325

Progress since 2008 15. We reduced the level of anti-social behaviour reported across the Borough by 19.3% during 2009/10, the biggest reduction seen in Greater Manchester. This trend is continuing during 2010/11, with the number of incidents in 2010/11 being 9.7% lower than in 2009/10. 16. Numbers of criminal damage incidents recorded across the Borough have fallen by over 40% between 2007/08 and 2010/11 17. Numbers of deliberate primary fires have significantly decreased, from 26.8 per 10,000 population in 2007/08 to 12.39 per 10,000 population in 2010/11 18. Since the introduction of the Anti Social Behaviour Victims’ Champion over 80 referrals have been made for direct support and 60 referral have been made to the Anti Social Behaviour Risk Assessment Conference (ASBRAC) for co-ordinated supported (since March 2010) 19. Over 850 stop and account letters have been sent to parents since the introduction of the stop and account initiative 20. Over 300 individuals have had preventative action plans implemented by the Case Intervention Group 21. There are currently 32 ASBOs in force, of which 10 relate to people under 18 and 22 to people over 18 Our Priorities for 2011 - 2014 22. Use analysis techniques to provide early identification of ‘hotspot’ areas for anti social behaviour and criminal damage and implement timely and co-ordinated responses 23. Continue to: a. Utilise the full range of enforcement powers available to the Partnership to tackle individuals and groups whose anti social behaviour has a negative impact on local communities b. Balance enforcement with effective multi-agency prevention packages, targeted at those most at risk of engagement in anti social behaviour. c. Provide support to the most vulnerable victims and witnesses of anti social behaviour through the ASBRAC process. d. Promote greater more meaningful engagement with our communities in relation to defining problems, directing resources and helping us to manage expectations and outcomes. e. Focus on promoting greater ownership and care for the local environment amongst the Borough’s residents, tackling criminal damage and those other crimes that have a detrimental effect on the environment. Taking into account the Government Big Society Agenda. 24. Implement: a. Locally, the aspects of the Government’s forthcoming reviews of Anti Social Behaviour Legislation. b. The Risk Assessment Matrix to all Housing Providers across the Borough to ensure a consistent and seamless service regardless of tenure

Our performance measures for tackling Anti Social Behaviour (ASB)

ASB 1 Reduce the percentage of people who perceive there to be high levels of anti social behaviour in their area ASB 2 Increase the level of public confidence in agencies dealing with the anti social behaviour and crime problems in their area ASB 3 Reduce the number of anti-social behaviour incidents recorded in the Borough ASB 4 Reduce the number of criminal damage incidents recorded in the Borough Page26 326

ASB 5 Reduce the number of deliberate secondary fires recorded in the Borough

10 E. PREVENTING OFFENDING BY CHILDREN AND YOUNG PEOPLE This has been one of the Partnership’s core strategic priorities for many years and remains so today. Well-developed links with the Rochdale Borough Children’s Trust have enabled a number of collaborative projects to be developed and implemented over recent years, with the aims of improving the life chances of young people and providing them with the activities, support and guidance that will divert them from involvement in crime and anti- social behaviour. Rochdale Borough’s Children’s Plan contains a number of proposed measures designed to keep young people on the road to success in their lives. The Partnership, through its relevant Strategic Priority Groups, will work in collaboration with the Children’s Trust on local implementation on a range of measures to focus on: • Targeting resources to provide interventions for those young people at greatest risk of offending and re-offending • Focusing on a restorative approach to the management of young offenders The Partnership has, along with the Trust, already made good progress on a number of issues relating to prevention of offending by young people. Numbers of young people entering the criminal justice system for the first time have fallen significantly over the past two years, whilst hundreds of young people around the Borough have benefited from provision of wide-ranging programmes to promote their greater inclusion in society and divert them away from the temptation to engage in crime and anti-social behaviour.

What we’ve been doing 1. Engaging over 7,000 young people per year in Youth Service positive activities programmes across the Borough 2. To develop the YOT (Youth Offending Team) prevention service, which provides support and guidance for young people at risk of offending and for their families 3. Extending the range and availability of youth services provided throughout the Borough, including the deployment of mobile youth facilities and street based work in ‘hot-spot’ areas in joint initiatives with Community Safety and Police colleagues. 4. Reviewing prevention services to target services towards vulnerable young people across the Borough 5. Numbers of young people entering the criminal justice system for the first time have reduced year-on-year, from 425 in 2006/07 to 342 in 2009/10. Performance in 2010/11 is on track to lower this figure much further. 6. The rate of re-offending by young people in the Borough has reduced by 5.5% during 2010/11

Our priorities for 2011-2014 7. Dealing with emerging trends in crime committed by young people, particularly involving the use of weapons and domestic burglary. 8. Reducing the risk of re-offending by persistent young offenders by maintaining the Youth Justice Board’s ‘scaled approach’, to target resources at those young people most at risk of offending and by continuing close working relationships between key partner agencies such as the YOT and Integrated Offender Management.

Page27 327

9. Reduce the use of custody for young people by developing a credible ‘Intensive Alternative to Custody Programme.(IAC) 10. Providing Targeted Youth Support to help identify at an early stage young people at risk and work to improve opportunities and outcomes for them 11. Introducing a new Boroughwide Prevention Strategy to include the YOT Triage assessment process, to develop and maintain the progress made in reducing the number of first time entrants to the criminal justice system 12. Working with colleagues across other Partnerships to support schemes to promote positive images of young people and to encourage greater understanding and cohesion between generations and backgrounds 13. Taking timely and appropriate enforcement action to ensure that problem behaviour is dealt with at an early stage to prevent escalation

Our performance measures for preventing offending by Young People (YP)

YP 1 Reduce the rate of proven re-offending by young people NB: Subject to continued availability of local data from PNC YP 2 Reducing the number of young people who are first time entrants to the Youth Justice System YP 3 Reducing the percentage of 16-18 year olds not in education, employment or training NB: Subject to outcome of Department of Education data review YP 4 Ensuring that numbers of custodial sentences are proportionate to the overall number of young people’s convictions YP 5 Ensuring young people's participation in positive activities NB: This will be subject to review after 2011-12 if collection method is removed

Page28 328

10 F. REDUCING ADULT REOFFENDING As described in section 3, reducing re-offending remains one of the Government’s key areas of focus for the next three years. The New Green Paper – “Breaking the Cycle: Effective Punishment, Rehabilitation and Sentencing of Offenders” highlights the following areas: Punishment and Payback, Payback to Victims, Rehabilitation, Payment by Results, Public Order / Safety Budgets, Sentencing Reform and Working with Communities to Reduce Crime. All of this to be achieved in the context of significantly shrinking partnership budgets. This can be achieved through: 1. The Transforming Justice agenda for Conditional Cautioning for first time entrants to the Criminal Justice System (CJS), Court diversion & Restorative Justice approaches 2. Reducing under 12 month prison sentences by offering reassurance to the Court and Community about robust community sentences and intensive alternatives to custody 3. The expansion of Integrated Offender Management (IOM) including a focus on young people and siblings 4. Ensuring the robust management and control of dangerous and prolific offenders 5. The provision of offender management services by a range of different agencies including voluntary and community providers. 6. Shared assessments and effective multi-agency joint commissioning of services 7. Place based budgeting and community ownership and co-ordination of work with complex families 8. Funding based upon performance related to: reducing re-offending; recovery from substance misuse; stabilising offender accommodation; and improving employment and education. 9. Focus on community reintegration and supporting transitions for offenders from children to adult services, prison to community and from offender to citizen 10. Strengthened service user engagement At a local level, the Partnership also has reducing re-offending as a strategic priority and has an established action plan to meet the challenge of transforming offenders in the local area into law-abiding citizens. This action plan focuses on seven main themes, or ‘pathways’, to reducing re-offending: 11. Helping offenders to deal with problems of drug and / or alcohol misuse that are a factor in their offending behaviour 12. Dealing with the mental health needs of offenders, particularly those in custody or subject to Community Orders 13. Improving offenders’ basic skills and their ability to get and retain a job 14. Ensuring that offenders can access and retain appropriate accommodation, and helping them to tackle debt 15. Improving offenders’ ability to see the consequences of their actions and to tackle problems without recourse to violence 16. Ensuring education, training and employment opportunities for young offenders and raising achievement levels 17. Tackling the intergenerational offending cycle through working with offenders’ families and children

Page29 329

What we’ve been doing 18. Managed the implementation and co-location of the multi-agency Integrated Offender Management “Spotlight” Team 19. Increased the use of the Community Prosecutor role for holistic sentencing of the offender 20. Contributed to Justice Seen Justice Done and increased the visibility of Community Payback 21. Continued the Green Team project and implemented the Achieve project which have both focused on improving skills and getting offenders into work 22. Continued the development of Alcohol Treatment Requirements 23. Worked with re-tendered Drug Treatment Services to focus on recovery 24. Pioneered the Health Trainer Project 25. Implemented the Community Integration Service 26. Increased the variety of community sentence requirements including New Direction Activity Requirement / Breach Activity Requirement and Brief Alcohol Programme Requirement 27. Strengthened links with Group 4 Securicor re: Electronic Monitoring 28. Managed the merger of Rochdale and Chadderton Custody Offices 29. Overseen the merger of the Reduce Adult Re-offending and Reduce Crime Groups 30. Continued to support the Mentally Disordered Offenders Panel 31. Re-launched the Manchester Multi-Agency Gang Strategy (MMAGS) and established Channel Meetings for the management of Violent Extremism 32. Implemented the Women’s Supervision Centre 33. Implemented the Reduction and Motivation Programme (RAMP) Progress since 2008 34. Increased numbers of drug using offenders in active treatment. 130 Drug Rehabilitation requirements have been completed successfully since 2008 and 55 of these have been in the last 12 months. 35. Increased numbers of alcohol using offenders in active treatment. 46 Alcohol Treatment Requirements have been commenced since November 2009 and 78% of completions have been successful 36. Increased the number of same day reports provided to the Court from 40% to 97% 37. Achieved visibility of Community Payback (Unpaid Work) in the community and got the community involved in selecting projects to be done. Over the last 3 years 146,616 hours have been worked in Rochdale of which 57,000 hours have been completed in the last 12 months 38. Achieved 292 Accredited Offending Behaviour Programme Completions over the last 3 years of which 80 have been in the last 12 months 39. Implemented Multi Agency Risk Assessment Conference (MARAC) in relation to managing Domestic Violence 40. Implemented and trained staff in the new single and multi-agency Safeguarding Policy & Procedure including Child Protection and Child in Need and Train the Trainers. 41. Contributed to the multi agency Safeguarding inspection 42. Implemented new Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements (MAPPA) Guidance including staff and chair training

Page30 330

43. Established links with the Sexual Exploitation and Sunrise Team 44. In the last 12 months since the launch of IOM, Rochdale has achieved the largest reduction of 15.44% in adult re-offending in Greater Manchester and the 2nd largest in the North West Region. Consequently this has resulted in significant financial savings of £213k, including £51k for 60 of the most Prolific Offenders 45. Implemented the use of the Violent and Sex Offender Register (VISOR) including refresher training with multi-agency partnership staff 46. Worked actively with Supporting People to ensure that offender accommodation as vulnerable individuals and families remains a priority within Rochdale Our priorities for 2011 – 2014 47. Reduce Adult Re-offending 48. Reduce duplication of assessment and service provision 49. Manage the merger of Rochdale and Bury Police Custody Offices 50. Manage the merger of Rochdale and Bury Magistrates Court 51. Implement any changes emerging from the Green Paper 52. Continue to manage Dangerous and Prolific Offenders via MAPPA, IOM, MMAGS and Safeguarding Procedures 53. Review implementation of Conditional Cautioning, CJSSS (Criminal Justice Simple, Speedy and Summary) and Restorative Justice 54. Focus on place based service provision e.g. Holding Families and Better Life Chances Projects 55. Promote offender health and community engagement in the resettlement and reintegration of offenders into the community

Our performance measures for reducing Adult Re-offending (AR)

AR 1 Reduce the level of proven re-offending by adult offenders under Probation supervision NB: subject to wider review of Ministry of Justice statistics AR 2 Reduce the re-offending rate of prolific and priority offenders AR 3 Increase the number of offenders under Probation supervision living in settled and suitable accommodation at the end of their order or license AR 4 Increase the number of offenders under Probation supervision in employment at the end of their order or license AR 5 Percentage of Probation clients time spent on payback work benefiting the local community AR 6 Percentage of orders and licenses that are successfully completed AR 7 Percentage of successful completions of orders and licenses by 18-25 year-olds

Page31 331

10 G. DEVELOPING COMMUNITY COHESION

Developing Community Cohesion became one of the Safer Communities Partnership’s key strategic objectives during 2008/09. Since then, work has been undertaken to try and improve the relations between all aspects of the community to promote a safer environment for all. Here we tell you what we have been doing during 2009/10 and set out some of our planned work for the forthcoming year. How we’ve performed in 2009/10 1. The Place Survey results were published and revealed a 5% improvement for the community cohesion indicator NI 1: People from different backgrounds getting on well together What we’ve been doing 2. Successfully applied for an additional £317,000 from the Migration Impacts Fund to help develop innovative ways for the delivery of services impacted upon by migration 3. The Lets Live Together project helped families move into non-traditional areas 4. Set up a series of interactive workshops and football matches between the Fire Service and young people to help build positive relations between the two groups 5. Sporting events were used as a vehicle to integrate individuals back in to society 6. Rochdale Mediation Services offered accredited training courses to give people the skills to mediate 7. The Saturday Short Break Scheme enabled people with disabilities from all communities to engage in diverse activities together. 8. An event called U-NITE took place that built a mutual understanding between young people aged 12-16 from different socio-economic groups, ethnic backgrounds and areas of the borough 9. A Faith Communities project officer was recruited to work with faith organisations in Rochdale Borough, to build capacity and empower religious communities 10. And the Peace Parade took place in Rochdale in September 2009 in recognition and support of the UN International Day of Peace and Non-violence Our priorities and plans for 2010/11 11. Develop a refreshed community cohesion strategy for the period 2011-2014 12. Identify a range of projects to commission to help achieve the Borough’s community cohesion aims and objectives 13. Continue to embed community cohesion in to core services and public understanding 14. Look for solutions and offer further support to those communities who feel marginalised 15. Tackling inequalities in accessing suitable housing, health and employment opportunities 16. Increase awareness around the different communities that exist in the Borough 17. Develop opportunities for contact between different faiths, generations and other groups 18. Advance the role of local third sector organisations

Page32 332

Our performance measures for developing Community Cohesion (CC)

CC 1 Percentage of people who believe people from different backgrounds get on well together in their local area CC 2 Percentage of people that believe they belong to their area CC 3 Percentage of people that feel that people treat each other with respect and consideration CC 4 Percentage of people who feel they can influence decisions in their locality CC 5 16 to 18 year olds who are Not in Education, Employment or Training (NEET) NB: This will be subject to review after 2011-12 if collection method is removed

Page33 333

11. FURTHER READING AND USEFUL LINKS

Policy, Strategy and Guidance • Home Office (2007) Cutting Crime: A New Partnership 2008-2011 • Home Office (2007) Delivering Safer Communities: A guide to effective partnership working • Home Office (2007) National Community Safety Plan 2008-2011 • Home Office (2008) Saving Lives, Reducing Harm, Protecting the Public: An action plan for tackling violence 2008-2011 • Office for Criminal Justice Reform (2008) Working Together to Cut Crime and Deliver Justice: A strategic plan for criminal justice 2008-2011 • Home Office (2007) Safe, Sensible, Social: The next steps in the National Alcohol Strategy • Home Office (2007) Drugs: Our Community, Your Say – a consultation paper • Home Office (2008) Drugs: Protecting Families and Communities – the 2008 drug strategy • Home Office (2007) Delivering Safer Communities: A guide to effective partnership working • Communities and Local Government Department (2007) The New Performance Framework for Local Authorities and Local Authority Partnerships: Single Set of National Indicators • NOMS (North West Region) (2007) North West Regional Re-offending Delivery Plan • Home Office Respect Task Force (2006) Respect Action Plan • Department for Children, Schools and Families (2007) The Children’s Plan, Building Brighter Futures • Rochdale MBC Research and Intelligence Team (2007) Rochdale Borough Profile 2007 • Rochdale Local Strategic Partnership (2008) Pride of Place – the Community Strategy (update) • Rochdale MBC (2007) Aiming High – the strategic plan of Rochdale Council 2007-2010 Useful links • Home Office www.homeoffice.gov.uk • Dept for Communities & Local Government www.communities.gov.uk • Dept for Children, Schools & Families www.dcsf.gov.uk • Crime Reduction website www.crimereduction.homeoffice.gov.uk • National Community Safety Network www.community-safety.net • Drug Action Teams www.drugs.gov.uk/dat • Drug Intervention Programme www.drugs.gov.uk/drug-interventions-programme • Greater Manchester Police www.gmp.police.uk • Greater Manchester Fire & Rescue Service www.manchesterfire.gov.uk • Greater Manchester Police Authority www.gmpa.gov.uk • Greater Manchester Probation Trust www.gm-probation.org.uk • Heywood, Middleton & Rochdale PCT www.hmrpct.nhs.uk • Victim Support www.victimsupport.com • Rochdale Council www.rochdale.gov.uk • Prolific & Priority Offenders (PPO) www.crimereduction.homeoffice.gov.uk/ppo/ppominisite09.htm • Ministry of Justice (NOMS), Regional www.noms.justice.gov.uk/noms-regions Reduce Re-offending Delivery Plan

Page34 334

12. MEMBERS OF THE PARTNERSHIP

Membership of the Rochdale Safer Communities Partnership Board as at 1 st April 2011 Responsible Authorities 1. Greater Manchester Fire & Rescue Service 2. Greater Manchester Police Authority 3. Greater Manchester Police 4. Greater Manchester Probation Trust 5. NHS Heywood Middleton and Rochdale Primary Care Trust 6. Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council Co-operating Bodies 7. Pennine Care Mental Health Trust 8. Rochdale Housing Initiative 9. School Governing Bodies Invitees to Participate 10. Addiction Dependency Solutions 11. Borough of Rochdale Multi-Faith Partnership 12. Cabinet Member with Community Safety Portfolio 13. Crown Prosecution Service 14. Elected Member to Greater Manchester Police Authority (GMPA) 15. Elected Members, Community Safety Portfolio Opposition Spokespersons 16. Link4Life Partnership 17. Rochdale Boroughwide Housing 18. Rochdale Council for Voluntary Service (RCVS)

Page35 335

13. GLOSSARY OF ABBREVIATIONS / TERMS

ASB Anti-social behaviour ASBO Anti-social behaviour order ASBRAC Anti Social Behaviour Risk Assessment Conference CJS Criminal Justice System CCTV Closed Circuit Television DV Domestic Violence GMP Greater Manchester Police LAA Local Area Agreement MARAC Multi Agency Risk Assessment Conference NI National Indicator NRS Neighbourhood Renewal Strategy PACTs Partner and Community Together Panels PPO Prolific and Priority Offender PSA Public Service Agreement RSCP Rochdale Safer Communities Partnership

Page36 336

14. PERFORMANCE MEASURES SUMMARY

The performance measures set out below are how we will measure our strategic priorities.

Our performance measures for increasing Confidence and Satisfaction (CS)

CS 1 To increase the percentage of people who agree that the Police and Council are dealing with the anti-social behaviour and crime issues that matter to people in their local area CS 2 To increase the percentage of people who feel safe outside in their local area during the day and at night CS 3 To increase the percentage of people who feel safe in their homes at night CS 4 Increase the number of people who feel they can influence decisions made in their area

Our performance measures for Reducing Crime (RC)

RC 1 Reduce the total volume of recorded crime in the Borough RC 2 Reduce the number of serious acquisitive crimes recorded in the Borough RC 3 Reduce the number of serious violent crimes recorded in the Borough RC 4 Reduce the number of thefts recorded in the Borough RC 5 Reduce the number of domestic burglaries recorded in the Borough RC 6 Reduce the number of vehicle crimes recorded in the Borough RC 7 Reduce the level of repeat victimisation in DV cases referred to MARAC RC 8 Reduce the number of deliberate primary fires recorded in the Borough

Our performance measures for reducing the harm caused by Drugs & Alcohol (DA)

DA 1 Increase the number of problematic drug users (crack cocaine or opiates) recorded as being in effective treatment NB: From 2012/13 subject to inclusion in the Public Health Outcomes Framework DA 2 Increase the number of problematic drug users (all types) recorded as being in effective treatment DA 3 Increase the percentage of problem drug users and all drug users successfully completing treatment DA 4 Reduce the percentage of the public who perceive drug use or dealing to be a problem in their area DA 5 Reduce the rate of drug-related offending DA 6 Increase the number of substance misusing Young People to have received an effective treatment intervention’ Our performance measures for reducing the harm caused by Drugs & Alcohol (DA)

DA 7 Increase the number of clients to have received an effective treatment intervention for alcohol misuse DA 8 Reduce the percentage of people who perceive drunk or rowdy behaviour to be a problem in their area DA 9 Reduce the rate of increase in hospital admissions per 100,000 for alcohol related harm Page37 337

NB: From 2012/13 subject to inclusion in the Public Health Outcomes Framework Reduce the number of alcohol-specific hospital admissions DA10 Our performance measures for tackling Anti Social Behaviour (ASB)

ASB 1 Reduce the percentage of people who perceive there to be high levels of anti social behaviour in their area ASB 2 Increase the level of public confidence in agencies dealing with the anti social behaviour and crime problems in their area ASB 3 Reduce the number of anti-social behaviour incidents recorded in the Borough ASB 4 Reduce the number of criminal damage incidents recorded in the Borough ASB 5 Reduce the number of deliberate secondary fires recorded in the Borough

Our performance measures for preventing offending by Young People (YP)

YP 1 Reduce the rate of proven re-offending by young people NB: Subject to continued availability of local data from Police National Computer YP 2 Reducing the number of young people who are first time entrants to the Youth Justice System YP 3 Reducing the percentage of 16-18 year olds not in education, employment or training NB: subject to outcome of Department of Education data review YP 4 Ensuring that numbers of custodial sentences are proportionate to the overall number of young people’s convictions YP 5 Ensuring young people's participation in positive activities NB: This will be subject to review after 2011-12 if collection method is removed

Our performance measures for reducing Adult Re-offending (AR)

AR 1 Reduce the level of proven re-offending by adult offenders under Probation supervision NB: subject to wider review of Ministry of Justice statistics AR 2 Reduce the re-offending rate of prolific and priority offenders AR 3 Increase the number of offenders under Probation supervision living in settled and suitable accommodation at the end of their order or license AR 4 Increase the number of offenders under Probation supervision in employment at the end of their order or license AR 5 Percentage of Probation clients time spent on payback work benefiting the local community

Our performance measures for developing Community Cohesion (CC)

CC 1 Percentage of people who believe people from different backgrounds get on well together in their local area CC 2 Percentage of people that believe they belong to their area CC 3 Percentage of people that feel that people treat each other with respect and consideration CC 4 Percentage of people who feel they can influence decisions in their locality CC 5 16 to 18 year olds who are Not in Education, Employment or Training (NEET) NB: This will be subject to review after 2011-12 if collection method is removed

Page38 338

Notes

Page39 339

15. FURTHER INFORMATION For further information about any aspect of the Safer Communities Plan 2011-14, please contact Ian Halliday on 01706 924694. You can contact the Community Safety Unit by e-mail at [email protected]

Page40 340 Agenda Item 13

ITEM NO.

Subject: Street Light ing Private Finance Status : Initiative - PFI (the Replacement Programme)

Report to: Date: 22 nd August 20 11

Heywood Township 5th Sept 2011 Pennines Township 6th Sept 2011 Rochdale Township 7th Sept 2011 Middleton Township 8th Sept 2011

Report of: John Patterson Email: [email protected]

Tel: 01706 924 614

Portfolio Member: Councillor Jacqueline Beswick - Cabinet Member for Performance & Partnerships

Comments from Section 151 Officer Statutory Officers: Monitoring Officer

Key Decision: For Information

Forward Plan General Exception Special Urgency

1. PURPOSE OF REPORT

1.1 The purpose of this report is to inform Township on the implementation of the Street Lighting PFI replacement programme as outlined in 2, which is being undertaken by the Council’s Street Lighting PFI Service Provider - Community Lighting Partnership (Rochdale) Limited "CLP"

(CLP is a consortium consisting of Pell Frischmann Streetlighting (Rochdale) Limited and Equitex (Rochdale) Limited with E.ON UK PLC acting as the Operating Sub-Contractor to deliver the services).

Page 1 of 8 Page 341 August 2011

2. BACKGROUND

2.1 The tender documentation issued to bidders, included an assessment of the Council’s street lighting infrastructure which summarised the condition of the columns, lanterns and associated electrical apparatus. It was considered that due to the poor condition of the lighting equipment, approximately eighty percent of the lighting would require replacement during the Core Investment Programme (CIP).

2.2 As part of the tender evaluation, bidders had to consider how they would approach the fast track replacement programme to reduce the residual risk to the public, whilst addressing the needs of Members, Townships and other stakeholders in addition to accommodating other major highway projects.

2.3 Township will be aware that on the 20 th April 2011, the Street Lighting PFI Contract was signed with CLP.

3.0 REPLACEMENT PROGRAMME

3.1 CLP have provided a proposal which prioritises each ward dependent on following factors;, the percentage of concrete columns, the level of deprivation, the level of crime and the quantity of substandard lights. It was considered that this approach was a good balance between addressing the risk of the ageing stock and providing better lighting to areas of the community where it is most needed.

3.2 To enable the efficient mobilisation of the project, the first three months of the programme have been proposed in detail at street level (details in appendix one), with the remainder of the programme being proposed at ward level (details in appendix two). It is proposed to have two sweeps of each ward (details in appendix three); the first phase will be to replace the concrete columns, as it is considered that these pose the greatest risk of early failure, with the second phase replacing the steel columns. As the consultation process progresses, programmes and schedules for each ward will be firmed up at street level.

3.3 Although the rationale behind the programme has been developed and a forward programme proposed, CLP are aware of the need to take account the Council’s requirements as the programme progresses.

3.4 The approach put forward by CLP is considered to be pragmatic and deliverable, providing new sustainable modern lighting within a five year period that will benefit the public and accords to the objectives of the Council.

Page 2 of 8 Page 342 August 2011

4. CONSULTATION PROCESS

4.1 CLP acknowledges that effective consultation is central to the success of the project and has therefore provided a detailed proposal on their approach. Prior to the CIP being implemented, a full programme of consultation will be undertaken to publicise the project and to ensure that the views of Members, Townships and key stakeholders are considered and incorporated into the designs.

4.2 As the consultation process progresses, meetings will be arranged with Ward Councillors and Townships to inform them of the programme within their area and to discuss if there are any other requirements to take into account.

4.3 The project will provide new energy efficient lighting as standard; however if Members or Townships require any additional requirements such as heritage style equipment or the facility for hanging baskets, festive lighting, or cctv; this can be discussed at design stage (subject to available funding).

4.4 Prior to the new lighting being installed; each resident will receive a letter informing them about the replacement works and answering common questions.

5. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

5.1 The proposal is integral to CLP’s bid; therefore there are no additional financial implications. However radical changes to the programme could affect CLP’s ability to schedule the work efficiently and could lead to increased project costs.

6. LEGAL IMPLICATIONS

6.1 The programme proposed by CLP forms part of their contractual obligations. Whilst CLP have stated that they will have a flexible and accommodating approach, major deviation from the principles set out in the contract without agreement from all parties, will cause significant problems with the project.

7. PERSONNEL IMPLICATIONS

7.1 The project is delivered by CLP; therefore there are no personnel implications to the Council.

8. RISK ASSESSMENT IMPLICATIONS

8.1 The approach proposed by CLP takes into account the condition of the stock and therefore columns in the worst condition are replaced earlier in the programme. Further more the replacement programme is to be fast-tracked to refresh all of the Councils ageing lighting provision in a relatively short time scale of five years.

Page 3 of 8 Page 343 August 2011

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 Documen t Place of Inspection Access to the document can be arranged by contacting John Patterson, Executive Street Lighting PFI Project Agreement Director, Tel: 01706 924 614

Page 4 of 8 Page 344 August 2011

Appendix 1

The First 3 Months of the Replacement Programme (Street Level)

West Middleton - Month 1

Grand Road Name Total BONSCALE CRESCENT 28 BRATTRY DRIVE 5 BURNSIDE CRESCENT 17 BUTTERMERE DRIVE 11 CONISTON DRIVE 7 CRUMMOCK DRIVE 3 DUNMAIL DRIVE 3 ENNERDALE ROAD 10 ESMONT DRIVE 2 HIGHERWO OD STREET 20 HONISTER DRIVE 4 PATTERDALE DRIVE 4 ROTHAY DRIVE 4 THIRLMERE DRIVE 13 ULLSWATER DRIVE 8 WOOD HILL 4 WOODHILL CLOSE 6 Grand Total 149

West Middleton - Month 2

Grand Road Name Total CALDBECK DRIVE 7 KIRKSTONE DRIVE 12 NEWBY DRIVE 5 NEWTON CRESCENT 27 ROSE MOUNT 4 WINDERMERE ROAD 90 WINSTER DRIVE 2 Grand Total 147

Page 5 of 8 Page 345 August 2011

West Middleton - Month 3

Grand Road Name Total DERWENT ROAD 9 DURNFORD STREET 24 EMERSON DRIVE 3 HOLLINS DRIVE 3 KENTMERE DRIVE 5 LANGLEY AVENUE 2 LANGLEY LANE 49 LINDALE DRIVE 2 MELLALIEU STREET 26 RECTORY STREET 16 TALKIN DRIVE 6 WYTHBURN ROAD 7 Grand Total 152

Page 6 of 8 Page 346 August 2011

Appendix 2

The Remainder of the 5 year Replacement Programme (Ward Level)

Page 7 of 8 Page 347 August 2011

Appendix 3

The 5 year Replacement Programme Illustrating the Two Phases

Please note:

Following completion of the initial consultation process; the above graph will be altered to reflect the actual start date.

Page 8 of 8 Page 348 August 2011 Agenda Item 14

CABINET TEMPLATE

Subject: Financial Regulations Report – Status: For Publication Housing Market Renewal Programme, 2011- 12. East Central Rochdale, Langley, Inner Rochdale and Kirkholt

Report to : Cabinet (for approval) Date: 11 th July 2011 (Cabinet)

Rochdale Township Committee(for 5th – 8th September 2011 information) (Township Committees) Pennine Township Committee (for information) Middleton Township Committee (for information)

Report of: Donna B owler Email: (Housing & Regeneration Service) [email protected]

Tel: 01706 926714 Cabinet Member: Councillor Linda Robinson , Portfolio Holder for Health, Adult Care and Housing Comments from Section 151 Officer x Statutory Officers: Monitoring Officer x

Key Decision: Yes

Forward Plan x General Exception Special Urgency

1. PURPOSE OF REPORT

1.1 This report seeks approval in principle under financial regulations 9.15(b) and 12.5(b) for expenditure of £1,000,000 newly designated resources to implement the proposed Housing Market Renewal (HMR) Programme Delivery Plans for East Central Rochdale, Langley, Inner Rochdale, Kirkholt.

1.2 Township Committees are requested to note the report

2. RECOMMENDATIONS

Version Number: Page: 1 of 13

Page 349 2.1 Approval be given by Cabinet under financial regulations 9.15(b) and 12.5(b) to carry forward from 2010/11, and spend, HMR resources of £1,000,000 capital as a result of funding (former English Partnership funding) received from the Homes and Communities Agency (HCA)

In accordance with the legal agreement with the HCA and the removal of the ring fence to HMR funding, the agreement required Rochdale to spend the new £1M funding within the first wave neighbourhoods of East Central Rochdale and Langley in which the HCA has invested considerable funding in the past

2.2 Members note proposals to spend the £1m new resources plus £2,638,057 of slippage from 2010/11 to implement the proposed HMR Delivery Plans for East Central Rochdale, Langley, Inner Rochdale and Kirkholt as follows

£ (Capital)

(a) East Central Rochdale 1,598,224 (b) Langley 1,487,419 (c) Inner Rochdale 199,084 (d) Kirkholt 205,330

Total 3,490,057

£ (Revenue)

(e) On going site maintenance, redundancies 148,842 and staffing *

3,638,899

*£98,842 of the revenue slippage is subject to carry a forward request to Executive Leadership Team. The other £50,000 is already held in a Strategic Housing Service reserve for site maintenance

2.3 Details of each programme are outlined in Appendix 1

2.4 Any decision regarding changes and/or virements to the proposed schemes be delegated to the portfolio holder for Housing and Service Director for Housing and Regeneration

2. 5 Township Committees are requested to note the report

Version Number: Page: 2 of 13

Page 350 MAIN TEXT INCLUDING ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED/ CONSULTATION CARRIED OUT

3.1 The Council is responsible for ensuring that the funding is properly managed and spent and that projects are delivered to standard and on time.

3.2 Since April 2004 investment within the borough has been approximately £63,000,000.

3.3 The coalition government closed down the HMR programme last year and the 2010/11 allocation of £11,128,000 was the last.

3.4 Activity in 2010/11

3.4.1 In 2010/11 investment of £8,489,101 took place within the four HMR neighbourhoods and on central management and administration as follows

£ (Capital & revenue) East Central Rochdale 1,398,119 Langley 1,153,318 Inner Rochdale 3,238,331 Kirkholt 1,029,925 Other 1,462,931 Contribution to Core team costs 206,477

Total 8,489,101

Allocation 11,128,000

Balance 2,638,899

Balance Plus £1m extra funding 3,638,899

3.5 Future Activities & funding

3.5.1 As the programme, which was originally due to last 15 years ended quite suddenly there is still work to be done to achieve the programme objectives in the four neighbourhoods.

3.5.2 The removal of the ringfence means the balances/slippage from 2010/11 of £2,490,057 capital and £148,842 revenue can be carried forward into 2011/12 to complete activities started in 2010/11 and to undertake on-going commitments such as maintenance of sites and security or acquired properties. This expenditure was approved by Cabinet in March and October 2010.

Version Number: Page: 3 of 13

Page 351 3.5.3 Oldham Council has transferred responsibility for managing the HMR money to Rochdale Council. Any decision regarding changes and/or virements will be delegated to the portfolio holder for Housing and the Service Director for Housing and Regeneration.

3.6 Alternatives considered

3.6.1 The £1M funding from HCA is restricted in accordance with a legal agreement to use within the first wave neighbourhoods of East Central Rochdale and Langley.

3.6.2 The remaining £2.6M is slippage from the 2010/11 financial year and whilst the ringfence has been lifted on HMRF grant, this £2.6M grant is required to meet slippage commitments carried forward from 2010/11 to implement the proposed HMR Delivery Plans for East Central Rochdale, Langley, Inner Rochdale and Kirkholt.

3.7 Consultation proposed/undertaken

3.7.1 Consultation took place last year and will be on going through appropriate area fora, relevant portfolio holders, ward members and Township Committees.

4. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

4.1 The proposed expenditure and funding sources are summarised below:

£000 Expenditure Capital East Central Rochdale 1,598 Langley 1,488 Inner Rochdale 199 Kirkholt 205 3,490 Revenue Site maintenance, staffing costs 149

Total Costs 3,639

Funded by: Remaining HMR grant c/f 2,639 Additional HCA funding received 1,000 3,639

4.2 The £0.149M revenue funding is required to cover site maintenance costs for 2011/12 to 2013/14 plus HMRF related staffing and redundancy costs in 2011/12. Site maintenance costs beyond

Version Number: Page: 4 of 13

Page 352 2013/14 are expected to be minimal and could be covered by reserved HMRF rental income.

4.3 The expenditure will be monitored through Departmental capital Spend as part of the Council’s capital programme. There are no longer any requirements to report externally.

4.4 When responsibility for the management of the HMR money was transferred from Oldham MBC to Rochdale MBC the only condition was that Rochdale Council’s Head of Finance agreed to ensure capital grant was spent on capital and revenue grant was spent on revenue.

5. LEGAL IMPLICATIONS

5.1 There are no legal implications.

6. PERSONNEL IMPLICATIONS

6.1 The reduction in the size of the HMR programme has lead to a reduction in staffing.

7. RISK ASSESSMENT IMPLICATIONS

7.1 There are no specific risk issues for members to consider arising from this report.

8. EQUALITIES IMPACTS

8.1 Workforce Equality Impacts Assessment

There are no (significant) workforce equality issues arising form this report.

8.2 Equality/Community Impact Assessments

There are no (significant) equality/community issues arising form this report.

There are no background papers

Version Number: Page: 5 of 13

Page 353

Appendix 1

EAST CENTRAL ROCHDALE

The 2010/11 East Central Rochdale programme delivered a mix of residential acquisitions, site remediation, area improvements and the appointment of a preferred developer for the Dean Street housing site. Owing to uncertainty within the first half of the year about the future of the programme, certain activities within the 2010/11 programme progressed more slowly than originally envisaged resulting in an underspend of £1,598,224 within East Central Rochdale. When coupled with the ability to rollover money into future financial years, the opportunity exists to finish this programme in a managed and controlled manner which will see result in the construction of new housing, in line with the original intentions of the Housing Market Renewal programme.

Future Programme The East Central Rochdale programme for 2011/12, and future years, has been prepared based on the budgetary information outlined above, and is a continuation of the activities, principles and priorities of the former Housing Market Renewal and Sustainable Communities Programme. There is still a need to address deprivation within East Central Rochdale and the cancellation of the HMR programme mid way through its projected 15 year timespan has left the council with a number of unresolved projects including the completion of acquisition programmes, the clearance of acquired sites and the development of already vacant sites for new housing.

The budget heads that are proposed are:

Project Budget Notes (HMR) Residential Acquisitions 164,688 To complete the housing acquisitions programme Home Plus Plan 30,000 To support residents from clea rance in moving to new houses. Commercial 643,536 To complete the commercial Acquisitions, Site acquisitions programme including any Clearance, Compulsory residual CPO activity to deliver clean Purchases title on development sites Site Remedi ation 650,000 Remediation of sites and associated works to ensure that sites are commercially viable for development.

Version Number: Page: 6 of 13

Page 354 Developer Partner 110,000 To enable procurement, selection and procurement, Legal appointment of partners for housing Fees development sites (including RMBC legal fees for negotiating development agreements and land transfers) Total 1,598,224

LAND ASSETS A report was presented to Cabinet in January 2011 which outlined the future Capital Programme. Within that it was noted that there are a number of sites that have been acquired for future housing development within East Central Rochdale, primarily using Housing Market Renewal funding. The Cabinet of Rochdale MBC has previously given 'in principle' support for the ring-fencing of land and building within sustainable communities areas for the benefit of the projects as part of a report relating to the RMBC Capital Programme in January 2008.

Each of these sites would have a value if sold on the open market. However, Cabinet have previously approved the use of land as RMBC’s match funding contribution to the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) for Housing Market Renewal Fund (HMRF) .

A 3 year programme was approved by members through the recent Capital Programme process approved at Budget Fixing Council on 23rd February 2011 This approval was subject to submitting the detail on each individual site to Cabinet (except for Langley as Cabinet approved a land pooling agreement that has now been signed by RMBC and Riverside).

Estimated valuations for the sites have been calculated although these have not been tested on the open market. The notional income that could be generated by the sale of the sites is £3.1m (using figures prepared by Impact Partnership in early 2010) which assumed a blanket valuation across East Central of £750,000 per hectare minus any costs of site remediation (£300,000 per hectare)

Version Number: Page: 7 of 13

Page 355

LANGLEY

In 2010/11 the Housing Market Renewal programme (HMR) enabled the Langley programme to reach the point at which new housing development can now take place. Although the HMR programme ended on 31 st March 2011 the removal of the ring fence allowed us to carry funds forward into the current year and allow the programme to be completed in a more efficient way.

Within the Langley 2010/11 HMR programme there are a number of projects that are being continued into the current financial year. In some cases this is the completion of remediation or demolition contracts, in others it is the completion of the wider commitment to acquisition and development. The amount being carried forward amounts to £1,487,419

Future Programme The completion of most of the key acquisitions and demolitions on Langley mean that it is now at ‘tipping point’ in its future regeneration. The ending of the HMR programme part way through its planned 15 year programme means that we will need to be more innovative in developing ways of ensuring that we are able to continue the work that has started on Langley

The recent signing of the innovative Land Pooling Agreement between the Council and The Riverside Group means that we are now able to progress to developer procurement on our first jointly owned sites. In addition there is still one key commercial acquisition that needs to be completed.

This year’s programme will focus on finishing any works that had not been completed last year as well as procuring a development partner to build on one of our first key sites. We will also seek to acquire the outstanding commercial site to support the planned development work.

The budget heads that are proposed are:

Project Budget Notes (HMR/HCA) £ Commercial 708,419 Acquisition and part clearance of Acquisitions and site Lakeland Court site within the Central clearance Core Demolition & Site 80,000 Completion of the demolition works in Remediation the Furrows Park area (Library & Martindale Flats) Environmental and 55,000 Completion of the work on the Gateway Public Realm project and Bowness Parade Improvements Developer partner 90,000 To attract developers and to support procurement, Legal procurement of partners for housing fees etc. development sites and associated legal/ design work. New Build Schemes 554,000 Gap funding to support the development of the first phase of

Version Number: Page: 8 of 13

Page 356 developmen t. Capable of being used in 2012/13 or 2013/14

Total 1,487,419

LAND ASSETS In September 2010 the Council agreed to enter into a Land Pooling Agreement with The Riverside Group as the two major land owners on Langley. This means that all development that takes place within the agreed Masterplan area will have capital receipts reinvested back into the area. The process has required formal valuations to be undertaken which identified the value of Council owned assets at £850,000 although most of these assets have been acquired using Housing Market Renewal funding. The notional development value of the Council sites that are not linked to HMR acquisition is £1,736,000 and this figure has now be deducted from the £17m HMR Council contribution in land in the Capital Programme.

Version Number: Page: 9 of 13

Page 357

INNER ROCHDALE The 2010/11 Inner Rochdale programme delivered a major programme of commercial acquisitions and area improvements along the Oldham road and Manchester Road Corridors. Owing to uncertainty within the first half of the year about the future of the programme, certain activities within the 2010/11 programme progressed more slowly than originally envisaged resulting in an underspend of £199,094 within Inner Rochdale which will be rolled over into 2011/12 to enable completion of the programme.

Future Programme The Inner Rochdale programme for 2011/12 is to allow a range of activity committed during 2010/11 to be completed, which contribute to the delivery of the former Housing Market Renewal and Sustainable Communities Programme. This activity comprises the completion of a site acquisition and the completion of an agreed programme of area improvements.

The budget heads that are proposed for 2011/12 are:

Project Budget Notes Commercial 26,385 To complete the commercial Acquisitions acquisitions programme including demolitions and relocations Area Improvements 172,699 To complete environmental improvement schemes on Oldham Road and Manchester Road Total 199,084

There remains a need to regenerate the Inner Rochdale area through a programme of new build housing, land assembly and area improvements. The cancellation of the HMR programme mid way through its projected 15 year time span has left the Council with a number of unresolved projects including the remediation of acquired sites, completion of a land assembly programme and the development of vacant sites for new housing. Additional funding could also be used to remediate two large sites acquired under the HMR programme to make them more attractive to developers, to complete the acquisition of sites along the Oldham road frontage, in order to secure ownership of comprehensive development sites.

LAND ASSETS A report was presented to Cabinet in January 2011 which outlined the future Capital Programme. Within that it was noted that there are a number of sites that have been acquired for future housing development within Inner Rochdale, primarily using Housing Market Renewal funding. The Cabinet of Rochdale MBC has previously given 'in principle' support for the ring-fencing of land and building within sustainable communities areas for the benefit of the projects as part of a report relating to the RMBC Capital Programme in January 2008.

Estimated valuations for the sites have been calculated although these have not been tested on the open market. The notional income that could be generated by

Version Number: Page: 10 of 13

Page 358 the sale of the sites is £1.5m (using figures prepared by Impact Partnership in early 2010) which assumed a blanket valuation across Inner Rochdale of £750,000 per hectare minus any costs of site remediation (£300,000 per hectare)

Version Number: Page: 11 of 13

Page 359

KIRKHOLT

The Housing Market Renewal programme (HMR) for 2010/11 enabled the Kirkholt programme to reach the point at which two new housing developments are on site and a third new housing development has been tendered and can now take place. In addition sites have been made available for future housing development. Although the HMR programme ended on 31st March 2011 the removal of the ring fence allowed us to carry funds forward into the current year and allow the programme to be completed in a more efficient way.

Within the Kirkholt 2010/11 HMR programme there are a number of projects that are being continued into the current financial year. These are the completion of remediation and demolition contracts, the completion of the committed acquisition of properties, completion of the on going training scheme and the support for the new development. The amount being carried forward amounts to £205,330

Future Programme The completion of some of the key acquisitions and demolitions on Kirkholt means that it is now ready for marketing the sites to support the future regeneration. The ending of the HMR programme part way through its planned 15 year programme means that we will need to be more innovative in developing ways of ensuring that we are able to continue the work that has started on Kirkholt.

This year’s programme will focus on finishing any works that had not been completed last year as well as supporting the development partner to build the first key site. If financing became available we would seek to acquire the outstanding properties to create the proposed Hill Top School site to support the planned development of the area.

The budget heads that are proposed for 2011/12 are:

Project Budget Notes (HMR/HCA) £ This is the payment to RBH for the demolition of the shops. This may have been paid already and we Demolition of Hartley Lane need to check with finance on the shops 86,643 status of this. This programme has started and the payment is due to be made within the next month. This can Groundwork training scheme be paid at this point as we have second phase 14,964 agreed a submission of an invoice

Purchase of Ashiana property 56,000 House being held to order. Developer Partner 26 ,723 To enable procurement, selection procurement, Legal Fees and appointment of partners for

Version Number: Page: 12 of 13

Page 360 housing development sites (including RMBC legal fees for negotiating development agreements and land transfers) Private Rented Sector 21,000 Slippage on the private rented sector scheme Total 205,330

LAND ASSETS A report was presented to Cabinet in January 2011 which outlined the future Capital Programme. Within that it was noted that there are a number of sites that have been acquired for future housing development within Kirkholt, primarily using Housing Market Renewal funding. The Cabinet of Rochdale MBC has previously given 'in principle' support for the ring-fencing of land and building within sustainable communities areas for the benefit of the projects as part of a report relating to the RMBC Capital Programme in January 2008.

Estimated valuations for the sites have been calculated although these have not been tested on the open market. The notional income that could be generated by the sale of the sites is Kirkholt is £2.4m (using figure prepared by Impact Partnership in early 2010) which assumed a blanket valuation across Kirkholt of £750,000 per hectare minus any costs of site remediation

Version Number: Page: 13 of 13

Page 361 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 362