(Public Pack)Agenda Document for Heywood Township Committee, 04/01/2016 18:30

Legal & Governance Reform David Wilcock Head of Legal and Governance Reform

Governance & Committee Services Floor 2, Number One Riverside, Smith Street, Rochdale, OL16 1XU

Phone: 01706 647474 Website: www.rochdale.gov.uk To: All Members of the Heywood Township Enquiries to: Alison James Committee Telephone: 01706 924816 Date: Friday 18th December 2016

Dear Councillor

Heywood Township Committee

You are requested to attend the meeting of the Heywood Township Committee to be held in Phoenix Centre - L/Cpl Stephen Shaw MC Way, Heywood, OL10 1LR on Monday 4th January 2016 commencing at 6.30 pm.

The agenda and supporting papers are attached.

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

Yours Faithfully

David Wilcock Head of Legal and Governance Reform

Heywood Township Committee Membership 2015/16 Councillor Jacqueline Beswick Councillor Ray Dutton Councillor Susan Emmott Councillor Colin Lambert Councillor Alan McCarthy Councillor Liam O'Rourke Councillor Linda Robinson Councillor Peter Rush Councillor Carol Wardle Rochdale Borough Council

HEYWOOD TOWNSHIP COMMITTEE

Monday, 4 January 2016 at 6.30 pm

Phoenix Centre - L/Cpl Stephen Shaw MC Way, Heywood, OL10 1LR

A G E N D A

Apologies for Absence 1. Declarations of Interest 1 - 3 Members must indicate at this stage any items on the agenda in which they must declare an interest. Members must verbally give notice of their interest at the meeting and complete the form attached with this agenda.

Members are also advised to take advice with regard to any matter where there is potential bias or predetermination in any business to be considered at the meeting and whether they should take part in decision making at the meeting.

Members are reminded that, in accordance with the Localism Act 2011 and the Council's adopted Code of Conduct, they must declare the nature of any discloseable pecuniary interest; personal interest and/or prejudicial interest required of them and, in the case of any discloseable pecuniary interest or prejudicial interest, withdraw from the meeting during consideration of the item, unless permitted otherwise within the Code of Conduct. 2. Civic Prayers 3. Heywood in Bloom - Presentation 4. Open Forum (6.30-7.00pm) Half an hour has been set aside for members of the public to raise any issues relevant to the business of the Committee and the Township. 5. Minutes - Heywood Township Committee 4 - 7 To consider the minutes of the meeting of the Heywood Township Committee held on 23rd November 2015. 6. Minutes - Heywood Township Planning Sub-Committee 8 - 9 To note the minutes of the meeting of the Heywood Township Planning Sub-Committee held on 8th December 2015. 7. Minutes - Heywood Township Delegated Sub-Committee 10 - 13 To note the minutes of the meeting of the Heywood Township Delegated Sub-Committee held on 1st December 2015. 8. Heywood Township - Highways Maintenance Programme 2016-18 14 - 16 9. Guidelines and Standards for Residential Development 17 - 25 Supplementary Planning Document (SPD)

DECLARATION OF INTERESTS

IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CODE OF CONDUCT ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL ON 25TH JULY 2012, MEMBERS ARE REQUIRED TO DECLARE DISCLOSABLE PECUNIARY INTERESTS, PERSONAL INTERESTS AND PREJUDICIAL INTERESTS (LISTED ON THEIR REGISTER OF INTERESTS).

MEMBERS SHOULD REFER TO THE CODE OF CONDUCT AND/OR THE MONITORING OFFICER AND/OR THEIR DECLARATION FOR FURTHER GUIDANCE

MEETING AND DATE Indicate either Nature of Interest  Discloseable Pecuniary Interest OR …………………………….  Personal Interest OR  Personal and Prejudicial interest Agenda item

Signed………………………………………………………………………………………… Please print name…………………………………………………………………………………………..

IF A MEMBER HAS A DISCLOSEABLE PECUNIARY INTEREST THAT HAS NOT BEEN INCLUDED ON THEIR REGISTER SUBMISSION, THEY ARE REQUIRED BY LAW TO UPDATE THEIR REGISTER ENTRY WITHIN 28 DAYS. FAILURE TO PROVIDE PROPER NOTIFICATION IS A CRIMINAL OFFENCE.

THIS FORM, INCLUDING ‘NIL’ ENTRIES, MUST BE GIVEN TO THE GOVERNANCE AND COMMITTEE OFFICER NO LATER THAN AT THE END OF THE MEETING Summary of discloseable pecuniary interests, personal interests and prejudicial interests.

Disclosable pecuniary interests A ‘disclosable pecuniary interest’ is an interest of yourself, or of your partner if you are aware of your partner's interest, within the descriptions set out in the table below. "Partner" means a spouse or civil partner, or a person with whom you are living as husband or wife, or a person with whom you are living as if you are civil partners.

Subject Description Employment, office, Any employment, office, trade, profession or vocation carried on for profit trade, profession or or gain vocation Sponsorship Any payment or provision of any other financial benefit (other than from the Council) made or provided within the 12 month period prior to notification of the interest in respect of any expenses incurred by you in carrying out duties as a member, or towards your election expenses. Contracts Any contract made between you or your partner (or a body in which you or your partner has a beneficial interest) and the Council - (a) under which goods or services are to be provided or works are to be executed: and (b) which has not been fully discharged. Land Any beneficial interest in land which is within the area of the Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council. Licences Any licence (alone or jointly with others) to occupy land in the area of the Borough for a month or longer. Corporate Tenancies Any tenancy where (to your knowledge) - (a) the landlord is the Council: and (b) the tenant is a body in which you or your partner has a beneficial interest. Securities Any beneficial interest in securities of a body where - (a) that body (to your knowledge) has a place of business or land in the area of the Borough; and (b) either – (i) the total nominal value of the securities exceeds £25,000 or one hundredth of the total issued share capital of that body; or (ii) if the share capital of that body is of more than one class, the total nominal value of the shares of any one class in which you or your partner has a beneficial interest exceeds one hundredth of the total issued share capital of that class.

Personal Interests You have a personal interest in any business of the authority where it relates to or is likely to affect - (a) any body of which you are in a position of general control or management and to which you are appointed or nominated by your authority; (b) any body - (i) exercising functions of a public nature; (ii) directed to charitable purposes; or (iii) one of whose principal purposes includes the influence of public opinion or policy (including any political party or trade union), of which you are in a position of general control or management; (c) the interests of any person from whom you have received a gift or hospitality with an estimated value of at least £25.

Prejudicial Interests Where you have a personal interest you also have a prejudicial interest in that business where the interest is one which a member of the public with knowledge of the relevant facts would reasonably regard as so significant that it is likely to prejudice your judgement of the public interest and where that business - (a) Affects your financial position or the financial position of a person or body described above; or (b) Relates to the determining of any approval, consent, licence, permission or registration in relation to you or any person or body described above.

MEMBERS ARE ADVISED TO REFER TO THE FULL DESCRIPTIONS CONTAINED IN THE COUNCIL’S CODE OF CONDUCT ADOPTED ON 25TH JULY 2012. HEYWOOD TOWNSHIP COMMITTEE

MINUTES OF MEETING Monday 23rd November 2015

PRESENT: Councillor Ray Dutton (Chair); Councillors Beswick, Lambert, McCarthy, O'Rourke, Rush and Wardle

OFFICERS: M. Robinson and B. Hirst (Economy Directorate), S. Hay, J. Platt and A. Storey (Neighbourhoods Directorate), V. Crossland and A. James (Resources Directorate)

ALSO IN ATTENDANCE: Inspector S O’Hanlon (GMP) and approximately 10 members of the public

APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE: Councillor Susan Emmott and Councillor Robinson

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST 36 There were no declarations of interest.

OPEN FORUM 37 The following matters were raised during the Open Forum:- a) Heywood Town Website Ms S Trickett and two colleagues gave an update on the development of the Heywood Town website. The website would be launched in early 2016 and Members were shown copies of how the website would look and how businesses and groups would be able to add their details to the website once it was live. In response to questions, Members were informed that nothing would be able to be added to the website without administrator approval and that criteria would apply for those wishing to be added to the site. Members thanked Sandra and her colleagues for the update. b) St James Football Club Mr D Dyson from St James Football Club referred to an article he had read online about Section 106 funding being available towards sports provision like football pitches and asked how this could be accessed by the Football Club. Mr Dyson was advised that the funding he had referenced had now been allocated but that the process was ongoing as more Section 106 funds became available. c) Heritage Boundary Signs Mr B Davies raised the issue of the provision of Heritage Boundary signs for Heywood that had been raised several months ago. Members commented that a scheme for the signs had been requested by Members and that Officers would be requested to present options for the Heritage Boundary signs scheme to the next meeting of the Heywood Delegated Sub-Committee on 1st December 2015. d) M62 Smart Motorway Works A local resident referred to the works being undertaken on the M62 smart motorway near his property which was causing a nuisance in terms of light and noise pollution during the day and night. Complaints had been made to staff working at the site but these had not been well received or acted upon and a further written complaint had recently been submitted. The Highways Services Officer was requested to liaise with the Highways Agency who was responsible for the works on the motorway about the complaints that had been made. SAVINGS PROGRAMME 2016/17 AND 2017/18 38 DECIDED – that it be noted that the consultation for the next group of savings proposals commences on 24th November 2015 and that the proposals will be reported for Township Committee consultative purposes to the meeting of the Heywood Township Delegated Sub-Committee to be held on Tuesday 1st December 2015.

FLU JABS - PRESENTATION 39 This item was withdrawn from the Agenda.

HEYWOOD TOWNSHIP COMMITTEE - MINUTES 40 DECIDED – that the minutes of the meeting of the Heywood Township Committee held on 14th September 2015 be approved as a correct record.

HEYWOOD TOWNSHIP DELEGATED SUB-COMMITTEE - MINUTES 41 DECIDED – that the minutes of the meeting of the Heywood Township Delegated Sub-Committee held on 22nd September 2015 be noted.

CORPORATE PRIORITY SETTING PROCESS 2016-19 42 The Township Committee received a presentation from the Director for Neighbourhoods to raise awareness of on-going consultation with residents and other stakeholders on the corporate priorities for 2016-19.

The presentation sought views on the listed key areas of focus under each defined corporate priority of people, place and prosperity. Members were asked to consider if these are still of primary importance and to rank those that are in order of importance. Surveys can be competed online on the Council’s Consultation Hub or by returning the questionnaire contained within the presentation to the Freepost address shown on the last page of the presentation. The consultation is open until 11th December.

A Member requested that community cohesion be included as a priority.

DECIDED – that the presentation on the Corporate Priority Setting Process 2016-19 be noted.

GREATER MANCHESTER SPATIAL FRAMEWORK 43 The Committee considered the report of the Director of Economy which outlined the current progress in the joint preparation by the Association of Greater Manchester Authorities (AGMA) of the Greater Manchester Spatial Framework (the GMSF) as a new statutory development planning document to guide spatial planning across the city region until 2035.

The report also informed Members of the current consultation which is taking place on a draft vision, strategic objectives and growth options for the GMSF and the opportunities for communities, businesses and elected Members to engage in this process.

In considering the submitted report, Members commented on the importance of the having an appropriate transport infrastructure in place to support any planned growth. Reference was also made to the Heywood Junction 19 scheme. Members also expressed concern about vacant sites and lapsed planning permissions which it was hoped that the Spatial Strategy would help address. DECIDED – that (1) the progress being made in the preparation of the Greater Manchester Spatial Framework as a statutory planning document which will guide future spatial planning and decision making across the Borough and wider city region be noted. (2) the consultation presently taking place across Greater Manchester to inform the publication of a draft Greater Manchester Spatial Framework during the autumn of 2016 be noted. Eligible for call in - no

REVENUE BUDGET UPDATE 2016/17 TO 2017/18 & CAPITAL PROGRAMME 2016/17 TO 2018/19 44 The Township Committee was updated on the proposed Revenue budget 2016/17 to 2017/18 and presented a proposed Capital Programme 2016/17.

The recommendations were presented to ensure the Committee were aware of issues and risks impacting on the development of revenue and capital budgets for 2016/17 and beyond.

Alternatives considered: None, the Council being legally obliged to set a balanced budget. The budget setting process is complex and must be undertaken in a planned way. Whilst budgets are prepared in accordance with the approved guidelines a number of alternative options relating to savings proposals and budget pressures are considered as part of the overall budget setting process.

DECIDED – That the revenue budget position for 2016/17 and 2017/18 and the proposed Capital Programme 2016/17 be noted. Eligible for call in – no, has been considered by the Corporate Overview and Scrutiny Committee.

PROPOSED DISCRETIONARY FEES AND CHARGES 2016/2017 45 The Committee considered proposed discretionary fee and charge levels for Finance Services, Legal and Human Resources; Early Help and Schools; Adult Care; Economy and Environment; Libraries; and Registrars and Celebrant Services to apply to transactions carried out within the 2016/17 financial year.

The recommendations were presented further the annual review of discretionary fees and charges carried out by the Council each year as part of the budget setting process.

Alternatives considered – None, as the Council needed to consider fees and charges as part of the process to ensure that the Authority set a balanced budget for 2016/17.

DECIDED – That the proposed changes to discretionary fee and charge levels within Finance Services, Legal and Human Resources; Early Help and Schools; Adult Care; Economy and Environment; Libraries; and Registrars and Celebrant Services for 2016/17 be noted. Eligible for call-in: No, has been considered by the Corporate Overview and Scrutiny Committee

EXCLUSION OF PRESS AND PUBLIC 46 DECIDED – That the public be excluded from the meeting during consideration of the following items of business since it is likely that, in view of the nature of the business to be transacted or the nature of the proceedings, if members of the public were present there would be disclosure to them of exempt information, namely information relating to the business or financial affairs of any particular person (including the person holding that information).

RATIONALISATION OF THE INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO - DISPOSAL OF UNDERPERFORMING GARAGE SITES 47 The Committee considered the report of the Director of Economy which sought approval for the disposal of a number of plots of land across the Township area in association with the previously agreed programme to dispose of a number of the Council’s garage sites.

The recommendations are as a result of a review of the garage site portfolio in accordance with the Council’s Corporate objectives and approved Asset Strategy.

The Heywood Township Meeting on 14th July 2014 approved the sale of a number of garage sites. However, further review work has identified that additional land could be included in the sale of four of those garage sites, which will enhance the value and develop ability of the disposal programme.

The plans (appended to the submitted report) show, hatched, the land with approval for disposal already in place, and edged, the additional land it is proposed to include in the sale.

DECIDED – that (1) approval be given the sites shown on the plans appended to the submitted report being sold on the open market. (2) the Head of Legal and Governance Reform be requested to carry out the legal work in connection with the disposals. (3) the purchaser pays the Council’s legal and surveyor’s costs. Eligible for call in - yes HEYWOOD TOWNSHIP PLANNING SUB COMMITTEE

MINUTES OF MEETING Tuesday, 8th December 2015

PRESENT: Councillor Susan Emmott (in the Chair); Councillors Beswick, McCarthy, O'Rourke and Rush.

OFFICERS: D Ripa (Neighbourhoods Directorate) and S Shahid (Resources Directorate).

ALSO IN ATTENDANCE: Two members of the public.

APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE: Councillor Robinson.

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST 18 There were no declarations of interest.

MINUTES 19 DECIDED – That, the minutes of the Heywood Township Planning Sub- Committee held on 1st September 2015, be approved as a correct record.

TWO STOREY REAR EXTENSION AND A SINGLE STOREY SIDE EXTENSION INCLUDING, THE DEMOLITION OF A REAR CONSERVATORY AND A REAR GARAGE (PART RETROSPECTIVE) AT 21 WELLAND AVENUE, HEYWOOD, ROCHDALE, OL10 4SU. 20 Further to minute 17, of the Heywood Township Planning Sub-Committee, held on 1st September 2015, the Director of Neighbourhoods updated Members in regard to the receipt of a planning appeal submitted by the applicant, against the non-determination of planning application 15/00746/HOUS, to construct a two storey rear extension and a single storey side extension including, the demolition of a rear conservatory and a rear garage (part retrospective) at 21 Welland Avenue, Heywood, Rochdale, OL10 4SU.

The Committee were asked to note that, the above appeal had been lodged since publication of the agenda. Members were asked what they would have resolved had they determined the application as presented to this Committee in September 2015 to inform the Council’s appeal statement.

The Committee were advised that representations made by interested parties in response to the planning application consultation would be sent to the Planning Inspectorate. The Committee were also advised that there would be a further opportunity for interested parties to comment as letters would be sent by the Council to interested parties, notifying them of receipt of the appeal.

The Sub-Committee considered the views of the objector to the application at the discretion of the Chair. DECIDED – That (1) the Non-Determination Appeal be noted; (2) there had been no material changes to address the concerns raised by the objector at 19 Welland Avenue; and (3) taking into account all the representations made, information presented in September 2015 and at this meeting of the Sub-Committee. The Committee would have been minded to refuse planning permission on the grounds that the proposal, by reason of the projection, scale, height and massing of the extension abutting the side boundary to the west is excessive and would result in harm to the amenity of the adjacent occupiers of No.19, by way of an overbearing impact. As such, the proposed development is contrary to Policy H/11 of the Rochdale Unitary Development Plan, the Council’s adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance note ‘Guidelines and Standards for Residential Development’, and the National Planning Policy Framework.

DEMOLITION OF AN EXISTING DWELLING, DETACHED SINGLE GARAGE AND THE ERECTION OF A NEW REPLACEMENT DWELLING AND A DETACHED DOUBLE GARAGE AT WARREN COURT, HAREFIELD DRIVE, HEYWOOD, ROCHDALE, OL10 1RN. 21 The Director of Neighbourhoods introduced submitted planning application 15/00716/FUL, for the Demolition of an existing dwelling, detached single garage and the erection of a new replacement dwelling and a detached double garage at Warren Court, Harefield Drive, Heywood, Rochdale, OL10 1RN.

There were no objectors present at the Sub-Committee meeting.

The applicant was not present to make representations in relation to the application at the Sub-Committee meeting.

DECIDED – That (1) authorisation be granted for the removal of T22 identified in the submitted arboricultural report, on the condition that two like for like replacement trees are planted; and (2) planning permission be granted subject to the conditions as detailed within the submitted report and subject to an amendment to condition 13, to secure the above.

APPLICATION TO FELL ONE CHESTNUT TREE WITH GROUP T195 OF TREE PRESERVATION ORDER NO. 010 AT CRIMBLE HALL FARM, CRIMBLE LANE, HEYWOOD, OL11 4AB. 22 The Director of Neighbourhoods introduced an application to fell one Chestnut tree with group T195 of Tree Preservation Order No. 010 at Crimble Hall Farm, Crimble Lane, Heywood, OL11 4AB.

There were no objectors present at the Sub-Committee meeting.

The applicant was not present to make representations in relation to the application at the Sub-Committee meeting.

DECIDED – That, the felling of one Chestnut tree with group T195 of Tree Preservation Order No. 010 at Crimble Hall Farm, Crimble Lane, Heywood, be approved subject to the conditions detailed within the submitted report. HEYWOOD TOWNSHIP DELEGATED SUB COMMITTEE

MINUTES OF MEETING Tuesday, 1st December 2015

PRESENT: Councillor Ray Dutton (In the Chair); Councillors Beswick, McCarthy, O'Rourke Rush and Wardle

OFFICERS: S Hay and A Webster (Neighbourhoods Directorate) S Smith and C Denyer (Resources Directorate)

ALSO IN ATTENDANCE: 5 members of the public

APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE: Councillor Susan Emmott, and Councillor Robinson

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST In accordance with the Council’s Code of Conduct, Councillor Dutton declared a personal interest in relation to application reference HTC/06/15 - Hamer Street Parking Restrictions, insofar as a relative manages the Crown Inn. Councillor Dutton took no part in the discussions or voting on this matter, vacating the Chair in favour of Councillor Beswick (in the absence of the Vice Chair Susan Emmott who had sent her apologies).

Councillor Rush declared a personal interest in relation to application reference HW/06/15 –Hornets Sporting Foundation Origin Series - by virtue of his as his association with Rochdale Hornets RFLC.

Councillor Wardle declared a disclosable pecuniary interest in relation to application HTC/01/15 – Summit Estate 20mph scheme - by virtue of ownership of a property in the area covered by the scheme. Councillor Wardle left the room during consideration of this item, taking no part in the discussions or voting on this matter..

MINUTES DECIDED – that the minutes of the Heywood Township Delegated Sub- Committee held on 22nd September 2015 be approved as a correct record.

SAVINGS PROGRAMME 2016/17 AND 2017/18 The Township Committee considered a report of the Director of Resources which informed the Members of the saving proposals for 2016/17 and 2017/18 which have service delivery implications and sought comments as part of the public consultation process.

The recommendations were put forward as, based on current assumptions, the Council needed to make savings of £37 million over the next two years to set a balanced budget and the proposals presented were intended to reduce the estimated funding gap.

In terms of alternatives considered, consideration had been given to a number of options in developing proposals and within each individual proposal report any alternatives considered were noted. To do nothing was not considered to be an option as the Council is required to set a lawful budget. Cabinet Members could decide not to implement the proposals and provide alternative options to enable a balanced budget to be achieved. The report formed part of consultation being undertaken with the public, stakeholder groups, staff and service users as appropriate. The proposals represented ‘Group 2’ savings proposals with consultation commencing on 24th November 2015 and will complete on 8th January 2016, the consultations following a process outlined in paragraph 3.2 to the submitted report.

In response to proposal CC103 Members expressed a view that the overall level of resource which the Council devotes to the Crime and Disorder agenda, should be reduced to the level of statutory duties only as this is primarily a Police matter.

The Committee expressed their thanks to the Cabinet Members and the Leadership Team for their efforts in compiling the savings programme for consultation.

DECIDED – That the savings proposals as detailed within the submitted report be noted.

HEYWOOD TOWNSHIP FUNDS 2015/16 The Director of Neighbourhoods presented a report which updated the Sub- Committee on revenue and capital expenditure, commitments and balances of Heywood Township Fund 2015/2016, to enable the Sub-Committee to allocate funds to proposed projects.

The recommendations contained in the report were presented as the management of the Heywood Township Fund was a function delegated to this Sub-Committee to determine. The Heywood Township Funds were designed to be allocated to projects that benefit the Township’s communities and environment and which realise the Township’s stated priorities. The Sub-Committee monitors and reviews the use of the Heywood Township Funds to ensure continued efficient and effective use of the Township’s Funds.

The Sub-Committee were asked to note the expenditure, commitments and balances for Heywood Township revenue and capital funds as detailed in Appendix 1, 1A 2 and 2A the decisions made under delegated authority as detailed in Appendix 3 to the submitted report and to consider and approve, defer or refuse the allocation of funds to proposed projects detailed in Appendix 4.

Members of the Heywood Township Delegated Sub-Committee were requested to note the Principal Townships Officer’s assessment of the proposed projects to be considered for funding against the criteria of eligibility for the Heywood Township Fund, priorities of the Township and any specific risks identified.

Alternatives considered - in considering the report, Members were asked to decide whether or not to approve the allocation of funds to projects/schemes as appropriate.

The Sub-Committee considered the views of a representative of the Friends of Tourcoing Association who addressed the Sub-Committee in relation to application HE/07/15 – Celebration of 50 Years of civic twinned town friendship.

The Sub-Committee considered the views of Mr N Wood who addressed the Sub- Committee in relation to application HW/06/15 – Hornets Sporting Foundation Origin Series

The Sub-Committee considered the views of Ms H Parkinson who addressed the Sub-Committee in relation to application HTC/08/15 – Higher Lomas Lane improvements DECIDED – That (1) the expenditure, commitments and balances for Heywood Township Revenue and Capital Funds, as detailed in Appendices 1, 1A 2 and 2A of the submitted report be noted; (2) the decisions made under delegated authority as detailed at Appendix 3 of the submitted report be noted; (3) it be noted that the Principal Township Officer had assessed the proposed projects to be considered for funding, against the criteria of the Heywood Township Fund, priorities of the Township Plan and any specific risks had been identified, (as detailed in Appendix 4 of the submitted report); (4) the Principal Townships Officer, in consultation with the Chair, Vice Chair and opposition spokespersons of the Committee, be given delegated authority to make decisions on any deferred projects (5) applications for Township Funds, (as outlined in appendix 4 of the submitted report); and as, verbally updated by the Township Management Officer, be dealt with as follows:-

REF: PROJECT/SCHEME DECISION HTC/01/15 Summit Estate 20mph Approve an allocation of £18,235 from Scheme the Capital fund for the introduction of area wide 20mph speed limit HTC/02/15 Merrick Street Lighting Approve an allocation of £17,008 from Scheme the Capital Fund for the supply and installation of lighting columns on Merrick Street behind The Starkey Arms, Heywood to address concerns raised about the lack of lighting in the area. HTC/06/15 Hamer Street Parking Approval in principal of an allocation of Restrictions £4000 from the Capital Fund for the introduction of restrictions to prevent parking on Hamer Street, Off Bury Street, Heywood to be deferred until further funding is available in the 2016/17 financial year. HTC/08/15 Higher Lomax Lane Consideration of the application for Improvements funding for be deferred until a signed agreement and an offer of a financial contribution towards the cost of the scheme from all the properties affected is received. HTC/01/13 Heywood Cemetery Road Approve an allocation of £25,021 from HTC/09/15 Entrance Improvements the Capital Fund for improvement works to the road entrance to Heywood Cemetery. HTC/10/15 Heywood Hall Road Grass Approve an allocation of £1696 from the Verge Replacement Capital Fund for the removal of the grass verge on Heywood Hall Road and replace with tarmac (plus an additional £804 of funding from Heywood North Ward Funds) HTC/11/15 Park Terrace Bollards The application for the funding of the supply and installation of nine bollards on Park Terrace, Heywood be declined (the scheme to be funded from Heywood North Ward Funds) HE/07/15 Celebration of 50 years of Approve an allocation of £500 from the civic twinned town friendship Events Fund for event/activities to celebrate the twinning between Rochdale and Tourcoing in France. HW/06/15 Hornets Sporting Foundation Approve an allocation of £1220 for a Origin Series programme of healthy activity, competition and support for young people based on the State of Origin Series in Australia.

Subject: Heywood Township - Highways Status: For Publication Maintenance Programme 2016-18

Report to: Heywood Township Committee Date: Monday, 4 January 2016

Cabinet Member: Cabinet Member for Housing and Environment

Report of: Director of Neighbourhoods Author: Tim Kershaw

Author Email: Tel: 01706 924577 [email protected]

Comments from Statutory Monitoring Officer: Yes Officers: Section 151 Officer: Yes Key Decision: No

1 Purpose of the report

1.1 The purpose of this report is for members to consider approving the recommended 2016-2018 highway maintenance programme for Heywood Township.

2 Recommendations

2.1 That committee notes and approves the proposed Heywood Township Highway Maintenance Capital Programme to be delivered in 2016-18.

2.2 Where events external to the Council require rapid response or agreement in principle, the committee authorise the Highways Service Manager to vary the programme in consultation with the Portfolio Holder and the Chair of the relevant Township committee.

3 Background

3.1 The recommended Highways Maintenance Capital Programme has been put together based on network condition data and visual site inspections by engineers. The programme aims to address the highest priority sites within the Heywood Township with the most suitable carriageway or footway remedial works within the allocated capital budget.

3.2 It should be noted that this is a two year programme which will allow opportunity for cost savings and flexibility around delivery in order to deal with the constraints with working on a live highway network. 3.3 Following agreement of the work programmes, delivery of the schemes is being co-ordinated with the street lighting PFI programme, other highways schemes, planning applications, other RMBC schemes and 3rd party utility works. Should it become necessary to delay or postpone a scheme in the agreed programme, this will be done in consultation with the Portfolio Holder and the Chair of the township committee.

4 Financial Implications

4.1 Appendix A provides the details of the proposed schemes for the Heywood Township Highway Capital programme 2016-18.

4.2 A budget of approximately £2.4 million is available for the Highway Capital Programme over the two year period, 2016 - 2018. Confirmation of the final budget allocation will be from the Department for Transport and is likely to be the end of December 2015. The budget is allocated between the townships based on population size and Heywood Township receives an allocation of £319,000 (14%). This value may change dependant on the final allocation from the Department for Transport (DfT).

5 Legal Implications

5.1 One element of programme identification is through our formal inspection process and if the recommended programme is not delivered this may result in Rochdale Borough Council being unable to defend negligence claims.

6 Personnel Implications

6.1 There are no personnel implications resulting from the proposed Highways Capital Budget.

7 Corporate Priorities

7.1 The proposed Highways Capital Programme sits within the ‘Place’ corporate priority for Economy and Environment in relation to ‘Promoting Regeneration, Investment and the Economic growth of the Borough’.

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 from this report.

9.2 Equality/Community Impact Assessments

There are no (significant) equality/community issues arising from this report.

Background Papers Document Place of Inspection Not applicable 11/12/2015 Rochdale Borough Council Highway Maintenance Programme 2016/18

Engineer's Township Ward Location Classified Area From To Surface Treatment Estimate

Heywood West Heywood Pilsworth Road Unclassified 3042 Tower Street Broadfield Street Carriageway Resurfacing £182,520

Heywood West Heywood High Street Unclassified 1660 Full length Full length Carriageway Micro Asphalt £16,000

Heywood West Heywood Longridge Drive Unclassified 2253 Full length Full length Carriageway Micro Asphalt £22,530

Heywood West Heywood Chatburn Gardens Unclassified 313 Full length Full length Carriageway Micro Asphalt £3,130

Heywood West Heywood Ashford Street Unclassified 203 Full length Full length Carriageway Micro Asphalt £2,030

Heywood West Heywood Mitton Close Unclassified 258 Full length Full length Carriageway Micro Asphalt £2,580

Heywood West Heywood Barker Street Unclassified 540 Full length Full length Footway Reconstruction £15,000

Heywood Hopwood Hall Magdala Street Unclassified 250 Opposite school Footway Reconstruction £17,500

Heywood North Heywood Nelson Street Unclassified 300 King Street Cobden Street Footway Slurry Seal £2,400

Heywood North Heywood Osborne Street Unclassified 220 King Street Cobden Street Footway Slurry Seal £1,760

Heywood North Heywood Cromwell Street Unclassified 500 King Street Cul de Sac Footway Slurry Seal £4,000

Heywood North Heywood Cobden Street Unclassified 215 Pym Street Buxton Street Footway Slurry Seal £1,720

Heywood North Heywood Pym Street Unclassified 230 King Street Cul de Sac Footway Slurry Seal £1,840

Heywood Hopwood Hall Manchester Road (A6045) Classified 1313 After Hareshill Road Opp Burnell Court Footway Slurry Seal £10,504

Heywood Various Carriageway Patching £35,630

Page 1 of 1 Subject: Guidelines and Standards for Status: Publication Residential Development Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) Report to: Township Committees Date: January 2016

Cabinet Member: Cabinet Member for Corporate Services and Regulation

Report of: Director of Economy & Environment Author: Andrew Eadie

Author Email: [email protected] Tel: Tel: 01706 924371

1 Purpose of Report

1.1 The purpose of this report is to inform Townships that the Guidelines and Standards for Residential Development Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) Consultation Draft has been approved for consultation by Cabinet, and to invite any comments that Members may have on the document at this stage.

2 Recommendations

2.1 It is recommended that Township note the document and the proposed consultation.

Reason for recommendation

2. The document will assist in ensuring high quality design for new residential developments in the borough, including extensions, updating our standards for such development which will help protect the amenities (e.g. privacy, daylighting) of the occupiers of neighbouring properties whilst at the same time aiding consistency and fairness in decision making.

3 Background

3.1 The Council published a ‘Guidelines and Standards for Residential Development’ Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) document in February 1995, which supplemented the Unitary Development Plan with a series of technical standards, such as minimum required distances between windows of neighbouring properties and maximum distances which extensions could extend along boundaries. These standards were based on historic national standards and ensured that new residential development could take place whilst having no unacceptable impact upon the occupiers of existing residential properties.

3.2 Although this document has worked well for many years, recent changes in national policy in respect of Permitted Development Rights (i.e. the scale of development which can lawfully take place without the need for planning permission) has necessitated a review of our standards to ensure that there is no conflict with national policy. This was also considered to be an opportunity to review the document generally to ensure that it is clear and up to date (including making it a SPD which is the up to date equivalent of an SPG). The key changes include:

 Amending the layout and content of the document to ensure that it remains relevant once the Core Strategy replaces the UDP;  Setting out clearly what does and doesn’t require planning permission;  Changes to the requirements for rear extensions to take into account the changes to Permitted Development rules: this is because larger single storey rear extensions than previously are now permitted without planning permission (the situation for other extensions remains the same);  New guidance in respect of bin storage requirements to tie in with the Council’s requirements;  A new requirement that most side extensions on detached / semi-detached properties be set back from the front of the property in order to ensure that a ‘terracing’ effect is not created in the street scene; and  The scope of the document has been widened to include some types of residential development which the previous document did not cover, such as flats above shops and barn conversions.

Purpose

3.3 Supplementary Planning Documents are used to provide further explanatory detail to, and expand upon, policies and proposals contained in the Local Plan. They are a significant ‘material consideration’ in the determination of planning applications. SPDs can be thematic or site specific and must be consistent with relevant national and local planning policies.

3.4 The purpose of this guidance is to assist in the process of ensuring high quality residential development throughout the borough, by supplementing the Development Management policies contained within the adopted Unitary Development Plan (UDP) and emerging Core Strategy. It is intended to aid all those involved in the development process in drawing up proposals for new residential development and for alterations and extensions to existing dwellings.

Content

3.4 The document includes policy context and general guidance along with seven specific guidelines. The content can be summarised as follows:

 Policy context, particularly the UDP and Core Strategy, and need for the document;  General guidance – including advice on what does / doesn’t need planning permission, and an explanation of the legislation concerning such issues as Green Belt development, Listed Buildings, bin storage requirements, barn conversions, ‘right to light’ and Building Regulations;  Standards for new residential development, specifically minimum distances between different elevations / windows to ensure that each property has an acceptable degree of privacy, light etc.; and  Standards for house extensions, including maximum distances along boundaries with adjacent properties for both single storey and two storey extensions, the avoidance of the ‘terracing’ effect, guidance for side extensions on corner plots and design standards for dormers. Consultation

3.5 Cabinet approval has been given for the Draft SPD to go out for consultation for a period of 6 weeks. It is intended that this will start in mid January. Consultation and participation will include the following:

 Coverage and publication on the Council’s website;  Deposit of the SPD in all of the borough’s libraries;  Letter / email notification to statutory consultation bodies, general consultees and all interested parties on the Strategic Planning database, which includes: - Voluntary bodies whose activities benefit the area; - Bodies representing the interests of different racial, ethnic or national groups in the area; - Bodies representing the interests of different religious groups in the area; - Bodies representing the interests of disabled persons in the area; - Bodies representing the interests of businesses in the area; and  Letter / email notification to a list of agents from the planning applications database.

Alternatives considered

3.6 Not producing this SPD will mean there would be less clarity in terms of up to date guidance on technical standards for new residential development for applicants, developers and decision makers.

4 Financial Implications

4.1 There are no financial implications as a result of producing this SPD, which would be prepared in-house within existing budgets.

4.2 In terms of longer term implications, it is likely that the SPD will lead to better prepared planning applications which could lead to greater efficiency in terms of the use of staff resources.

5 Legal Implications

5.1 The production of Supplementary Planning Documents and their consultation arrangements must adhere to the requirements of the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012 (as amended). We will be complying with these requirements.

5.2 There are no other specific legal issues arising from this report.

6 Personnel Implications

6.1 There are no specific personnel implications relating to this report.

7 Corporate Priorities

7.1 The key purpose of this SPD is to promote better places through the protection of visual and environmental amenity. This will help to create places where people want to live, higher quality buildings and increased wellbeing, in line with the Council’s Vision and Blueprint.

8. Risk Assessment Implications 8.1 There are no specific risk issues to be considered arising from this report.

9. Equalities Impacts

9.1 Workforce Equality Impacts Assessment

There are no workforce equality issues arising from this report.

9.2 Equality/Community Impact Assessments

There are no equality/community issues arising from this report.

Background Papers Document Place of Inspection Guidelines and Standards for Residential Development Supplementary Planning Members Lounge Document (SPD) Consultation Draft APPENDIX

Equality Impact Assessment

What are you assessing? Please tick the appropriate box below.

Function Strategy Policy Project Other, please specify below



Service: Economy Section: Planning

Responsible Officer: Name of function/strategy/ policy/ project assessed:

Andrew Eadie Guidelines and Standards for Residential Development Supplementary Planning Document (SPD)

Date of Assessment:

8th December 2015 Officers Involved: Andrew Eadie

1.What is the purpose of the function/strategy/policy/project assessed?

(Briefly describe the aims, objectives and purpose of the function/strategy/policy/project)

The purpose of this guidance is to assist in the process of ensuring high quality design for residential development throughout the Borough and to supplement the Development Management policies contained within the adopted Unitary Development Plan and emerging Core Strategy.

The guidance focuses on design issues it is considered should be addressed by developers in formulating development proposals and which the Council will have regard to in considering applications for residential development, other proposals which affect nearby residential uses, and for alterations and extensions to existing dwellings, including development within the curtilage. Once adopted, this guidance will form a material consideration in the determination of planning applications.

2.Who are the key stakeholders?

Borough residents, developers, landowners

3. What is the scope of this equality impact assessment? That is, what is included in this assessment.

Assess the impact that the function/strategy/policy/project has on race equality, disabled people, carers, older and younger people, men and women, Armed Forces and Ex- Armed Forces personnel, religion or belief, sexual orientation, transsexuals or transgender, people who have undergone gender reassignment in full, pregnant women and those on maternity leave and on married people or those in a civil partnership. This includes both positive and negative impacts. It is important to note that SPD’s are intended to supplement, clarify and explain the interpretation of existing policy as opposed to making new policy. 4.Which needs is this function/strategy/ policy/ project designed to meet?

The needs of the borough’s population to have homes of their own and also to extend their homes as well as their right for their quality of life / amenities to not be adversely affected by the construction of new properties or extensions near to where they live. The need of the borough to have a sufficient housing supply for people to be able to live and work in the borough.

5.Has a needs analysis been undertaken?

A specific needs analysis has not been undertaken. However, the existing guidelines on residential development are out of date and therefore this SPD is required to provide clear advice and guidance on residential development ensuring that appropriate standards are met.

The changes to our standards outlined in the SPD are based on the contents of the General Permitted Development Order 2015, national legislation which would have been subject to needs analysis.

6.Who is affected by this function/strategy/ policy/ project?

All residents of the borough, as well as house developers.

7.Who has been involved in the review or development of this function/strategy/ policy/ project and who has been consulted? State your consultation/involvement methodology.

SPD’s are governed by specific regulations in terms of consultation. Prior to the approval of any final document a Consultation Statement must be produced setting out who was consulted, the comments received and how they have been addressed within the final document. This consultation will include general consultees as well as key stakeholders such as agents and developers. In terms of developing the draft document this has taken account of national guidance and internal discussions between officers.

The consultation will include:

It should be noted that this document is supplementary to the Core Strategy, which was developed on an evidence base including significant economic, environmental and social data collection, Sustainability Appraisal and the attached EqIA.

Over a third of applications received relate to residential development in the form of either new homes or extensions/adaptations to existing properties. This scale of applications will cover a wide range of groups and members of the community. The advice within the SPD deals will issues relating to residential development on a consistent and fair basis.

Any gaps identified through the consultation will be considered appropriately and inform this assessment. 9.Are there any other documents or strategies which are linked to this assessment? If so, please include hyperlinks to these documents below, where available.

None specifically

10.What impact will this function/strategy/policy/project have on all the protected groups? This includes both positive and potentially negative impacts.

Race Equality

It is not anticipated that this SPD is likely to have a negative impact upon any particular racial group.