Public Document Pack

ROCHDALE METROPOLITAN BOROUGH COUNCIL

CABINET

Monday, 3 February 2014 at 6.15 pm

SUPPLEMENTARY PAPERS

4a Rochdale Borough Transport Strategy Refresh – Appendices

4b Rochdale Borough Local Flood Risk Management Strategy - Appendices

ROCHDALE BOROUGH TRANSPORT STRATEGY

2014 REFRESH

Mark Widdup Director of Economy and Environment

Enquiries: please contact :- Strategic Planning Service Email: [email protected] Tel: (01706) – 924361

February 2014

Page 1 Vision By 2026 Rochdale Borough will have an affordable, sustainable, reliable, accessible and integrated transport network that offers travel choice for all, serves its communities, tackles air quality and climate change, enhances social inclusion, public health and supports economic growth and regeneration of the local area. Underlying Principles  Support the Borough’s environment, sustainability and public health agenda, tackling climate change through reducing emissions from transport, influencing travel choice, reducing natural resource use and carbon emissions and improving air quality by offering more opportunities / choice for people to travel actively, and by sustainable means.  Support the Borough’s strategic land use objectives which will better integrate with transport provision and support economic growth, access to employment opportunities, housing and other development in accessible locations where there is network capacity and connectivity is good.  Address concerns from the public who experience increasing delays and congestion, reducing journey reliability into, out of and around the Borough undermining business efficiency, discouraging local economic investment and reducing ”Quality of Life” for residents.  Support regeneration. Successful communities and development opportunities are dependent on high quality, reliable and affordable access to jobs, health, education and other key local amenities. Addressing this is integral to the Council’s Sustainable Communities Strategy aspirations and this Transport Strategy provides a framework to make delivery of this possible. STRATEGIC RAIL TRAVEL BETTER BUSES MORE & SAFER CYCLING WALK IN THE RIGHT SMARTER TRAVEL – TACKLE EFFECTIVE & EFFICIENT CONNECTING PEOPLE & DIRECTION CONGESTION FREIGHT PLACES  Improve quality, image &  Make bus travel more,  Develop a culture of cycle  Encourage people to take  Keep people & goods  Improve journey time  Prioritise local connectivity, choice for rail passengers, reliable, attractive, commuting, short local trips on foot, moving to drive economic reliability to support local  Public transport connecting  Better stations, trains & punctual & competitive.  Make cycling safer &  Build walking into daily prosperity, economic growth. communities to key reliable services,  Affordable fare structures. convenient, routines,  Support a culture where  Reduce impact of goods amenities,  Improve integration with  Improve service  Maintain & develop a “fit  Promote walking for residents can realistically vehicles on communities,  Strategic Highway other modes, frequencies, operating for purpose” inclusive health & leisure, consider & plan  Develop an effective connections that provide  Flexible / smart ticketing on all hours & route choice to network,  Improve air quality & sustainable travel, integrated freight network reliable access for business forms of public transport. match demand.  Better road safety & reduce congestion,  Exploit opportunities to (road, rail & water), & address bottlenecks,  Affordable fare structures.  Better bus interchange personal security,  Develop & maintain an demonstrate “Value for  Support improved vehicle  Efficient transport Page 2 Page  Direct access to a wider range with other modes,  Promote cycling as an inclusive PROW & wider Money” to the customer. technology to reduce connectivity to jobs, goods

LONG TERM OBJECTIVES TERM LONG of destinations,  Improve door-to door active & healthy leisure walking network,  Balance network demand environmental impact, & services.  Improve passenger experience connection, activity,  Develop a network for all with effective network  Where possible locate  Better integration between  Greater involvement in  Flexible / smart ticketing  Build cyclist confidence by that is accessible & well management, minimising loading facilities enabling travel modes, investment & operational on all forms of public developing skills & connected for all.. impact in traffic sensitive quick, flexible deliveries.  Ensure people get to where decisions. transport. providing information. areas. they want to go. TRAIN BUS CYCLE WALK CONGESTION FREIGHT INFRASTRUCTURE  Deliver Northern Hub in full  Maintain a viable bus  Establish a cycle  Establish an approved  Pre-planning engagement  Support & deliver GM Work with key partners &  Support electrification, lobby network in the borough, development plan, Definitive PROW map. with developers to freight priorities, stakeholders to deliver: to include Calder Valley Line.  Improved services to jobs  Develop & deliver a  Maintain an up to date promote sustainable travel  Ensure local freight plans  Rochdale TC Movement &

 Major improvement to & key destinations, connected cycle network, PROW Improvement Plan options that protect to commercial areas, Access Strategy,

Rochdale Railway Station, &  Take all opportunities to  Deliver cycle networks  Prioritise resources on network capacity, work & address impacts  Measures to support

2026

- develop the Borough’s other improve bus priority, trip integral to Town Centre routes linking, networks,  Promote sustainable travel on communities, economic growth & relieve

stations as transport hubs. reliability & vehicles, developments, amenities & communities, to relieve bottlenecks,  Explore demand for rail & congestion in Heywood & 2013 2013      Roll out small scale water freight , Middleton, - Lobby to improve line speeds, Continuous improvement Improve cycle parking, Ensure access for all, with service frequency & reliability, in interchange experience, with storage / changing routes including ramps, congestion relief solutions.  Review, map & promote  M62 J18-20 Managed  Influence re-franchising,  Through ticketing and facilities at key locations, seating & waiting shelters  Use technology effectively freight routes with clear Motorway (HA scheme),  Implement smart ticketing to interoperability for hassle-  Ensure new developments  Minimise barriers & trip to enhance efficient travel, signing & information,  Explore fixed line extensions allow travel between forms of free trips, incorporate cycling, hazards, convey travel information  Promote the borough as a to Metrolink,

public transport on one ticket,  Initiatives to promote a  Deliver LSTF measures,  Ensure new developments & reduce need to travel. choice location for freight  Heywood PT interchange & KEY PROJECTS : PROJECTS KEY  Equitable & affordable fares, more positive image of develop cycle training & include walking links to  Release “value land” to / distribution, re-develop town centre,  ELR extension to Castleton bus travel. promote commuter / key local destinations, deliver justified, affordable  Review restrictions on  Measures to meet access to  Increase station Park & Ride, leisure cycling as a  Promote / incentivise connectivity & network loading - addressing jobs, leisure, shopping &  Explore tram-train opps. realistic option. walking. capacity improvements. congestion health services A TRANSPORT STRATEGY FOR ROCHDALE BOROUGH

Transport Vision and Strategy – Page Summary

Contents: Page

1. Introduction 1.1 Role and Purpose of the Transport Strategy, 1 1.2 The Challenge. 2

2. Strategic Context 2.1 Rochdale Borough Sustainable Communities Strategy (2011-2021) 5 2.2 Rochdale Borough Renaissance Masterplan 5 2.3 Greater Manchester Strategy 6 2.4 Greater Manchester Third Local Transport Plan (2011-2016) 7 2.5 Greater Manchester Transport Fund 9 2.6 Local Sustainable Transport Fund (LSTF) 10 2.7 Unitary Development Plan (UDP) & Local Development Framework (LDF) 11 2.8 Economic Development Strategy 13 2.9 National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 14 2.10 Climate Change and Air Quality 15 2.11 Health and Well Being 16 2.12 Wider Governance Changes 16

3. The Current Situation – Movement Patterns in Rochdale Borough 18 3.1 Township Travel Patterns 20 3.2 Sustainable Transport Network 21

4. Key issues 4.1 Connecting Jobs, Education and Training Opportunities 23 4.2 Taking Advantage of Our Strategic Location to Access the Regional Centre 23 4.3 Improving Access to Town and Local centres and Transport Hubs, 25 4.4 Minimising Travel 25 4.5 Encouraging Walking and Cycling, 25 4.6 Prioritising Public Transport Improvements 26 4.7 Getting More from Heavy Rail Passenger Services 27 4.8 Maximising the Benefits of Metrolink 30 4.9 Improving Bus Service Integration, Reliability and Frequency 31 4.10 Congestion and Sustainable Improvements to the Highway Network, 32 4.11 Tackling Freight Issues, 34 4.12 Managing Travel Demand, 35 4.13 Network Management Duties, 35 4.14 Improving Local Transport Safety, 36 4.15 Maintaining the Transport Network 37

5. Linking Transport Proposals to the Strategy 38 5.1 Impact of the Action Plan on Travel in the Borough 42

6. Resourcing the Strategy 6.1 Greater Manchester Local Transport Plan 3 (LTP3) 44 6.2 Greater Manchester Transport Fund (GMTF) 44 6.3 Local Sustainability Transport Fund (LSTF) 45 6.4 Priority Investment Fund (PIF) 45 6.5 Regeneration Funding 45 6.6 GM City Deal “Earnback” 46 6.7 Private and Other Third Party Funding 47

Page 3 7. Implementing the Strategy 7.1 Stakeholders 48

8. Key Projects Action Plan 49 - Longer Term Aspirations 52

Contacts 54

Tables and Figures Figure 1 Rochdale Borough Existing Transport Network 4 Table 3.1 Travel Mode to Work (2011 Census) 19 Table 3.2 Employment Status (2011 Census) 19 Table 3.3 Car Ownership (2001 Census) 19 Table 3.4 Where People Work (2001 Census) 19 Table 4.1 Rochdale Borough Railway Station Usage since 2004-2005 26 Table 5.1 Programme of Transport Strategy Projects & Links to Aims & Objectives 39 Table 8.1 Key Projects Action Plan 49 Figure 2 Rochdale Borough Proposed Transport Network 53

Page 4 1. Introduction

1.1 Role and Purpose of the Transport Strategy

This strategy is a framework to guide the development of transport improvements across Rochdale Borough for the period up to 2026. It identifies priority schemes and projects that are deliverable, but the timing of their implementation depends on the availability of resources. It is, therefore a fluid document with an action plan that will change to respond to prevailing funding opportunities. The document initially published in 2009 is being refreshed because of its success has led to a number of proposals being implemented or have secured firm funding commitments. This strategy will continue to be used to support future funding bids but also aims to deliver a transport vision that:

“By 2026, Rochdale Borough will have a safe, affordable, sustainable, reliable, accessible and integrated transport network that offers travel choice for all, serves its communities, tackles air quality and climate change, enhances social inclusion, public health and supports the regeneration and economic growth of the local area”

The strategy is critical in enabling the Council and its partners to achieve its, economic, social, regeneration and environmental objectives. It will primarily support, guide and be developed through the Local Transport Plans (LTP) and Local Development Framework (LDF) processes. It will support the delivery of other strategies and programmes, including the Sustainable Communities Strategy, Borough Masterplan, Economic Development, Infrastructure and Investment, Environment and Health Strategies. It also considers the impacts of future capital investment in education facilities and the “re-organisation of hospital services” both of which rely, and heavily influence travel patterns.

The Transport Strategy: (a) will link with different tiers of transport policy, (local, sub-regional and national transport priorities) including priorities set out in the Greater Manchester Strategic Plan (b) has both short term delivery priorities including those contributing to relevant local and national economic growth and transport targets / goals, and offers the long term strategic direction in developing the borough’s transport network; (c) sets out the transport priorities for the borough to support the wider holistic aims and aspirations set out in the Sustainable Communities Strategy, Borough Masterplan and Local Development Framework (LDF); (d) identifies transport improvement proposals, informing future transport programmes (including GM LTP) and the LDF (e) provides a framework for developing and lobbying for proposals that benefit all network users; and (f) present a clear statement to the public and the Council’s transport partners of its priorities and indicative timescales for delivering improvements to meet the Borough’s future development needs.

The Strategy has four underlying principles:  Support the Borough’s environment / sustainability and public health agenda tackling climate change through reducing emissions from transport, influencing travel choice, reducing natural resource use, and improving air quality offering more opportunities / choices for people to travel actively and independently by sustainable means;

 Support the Borough’s strategic land-use objectives which will better integrate with transport provision and support economic growth, access to employment opportunities, housing and other development in locations where there is network capacity and connectivity is good;

1 Page 5  Address concerns from the public, who, experience increasing delay and, congestion, reducing journey reliability into / out of and around the Borough which undermines business efficiency, discourages local economic investment and reduces “Quality of Life” for residents; and

 Support regeneration. Successful communities and development opportunities are dependent on high quality, reliable and affordable access to jobs, health, education, leisure and other key local amenities. This is integral to deliver the Council’s Sustainable Communities Strategy aspirations and this Strategy provides a framework of transport initiatives to deliver this if possible.

The strategy primarily aims to manage demand and move of goods and people (including those with impaired mobility or disability), make better use and maximise operation of the existing network. It also encourages use of contemporary and emerging technology in fuelling and “re- charging vehicles and in conveying up to date transport information, reducing the need to travel and congestion. Opportunities to use transport information more efficiently through the provision of improved electronic communication will be exploited eg broadband, video-conferencing etc.

The Transport Strategy provides a framework to support more detailed proposals through development of Township Plans. It is aspirational, so does not contain detailed evidence to justify the proposals put forward in the action plan. This will be provided in future study reports, business cases and supporting technical documents supporting funding bids relating to particular schemes / work packages..

1.2 The Challenge

Whilst the borough has good and improving transport links to the regional centre, it is on the axis of two motorways - the M62/M60 and M66, has a good frequent rail links between the regional centre, quality inter-urban bus corridors operating frequent services and improving interchange hubs, the transport network does still not meet the travel demands of the local economy and communities.

The challenge is to provide an affordable, sustainable and effective transport network which offers seamless hassle free travel, serving all local community needs by further enhancing strategic and cross-borough links to provide a coherent network, travel mode choice and connectivity. It is essential to support local economic regeneration and growth, while tackling pollution and CO2 emissions from traffic. The implementation of the Council’s transport priorities will also depend on close working relationships with partner agencies, transport providers and developers, taking opportunities arising from regeneration initiatives and both private and public investment.

The Borough needs to understand the strategic priorities for improving the transport network and deliver its wider social and economic objectives, particularly regeneration, growth and cost efficiency. This recognition will enable the Council to support key national and GM objectives and determine the Borough approach to exploit the range of investment and funding opportunities presented.

A single page summary of the strategy vision and priorities precedes Section 1 Introduction. Section 2 Strategic Context, updates the national, sub-regional and local policies since 2009. Section 3 outlines ‘The current situation in Rochdale Borough and traffic patterns in the borough and Section 4 ‘Key Issues’ identifies those issues and other matters which the strategy needs to address. Section 5 Links the Council’s Strategic objectives to the proposals being put forward in this strategy to demonstrate that the all the schemes are anchored in delivering the Council’s Local Objectives and in turn its Transport Vision.

Chapter 6 outlines potential Resourcing and Funding options. The range of these options is currently frequently changing as the current government favour specific programmes to deliver 2 Page 6 specific aims to deliver its transport and economic growth priorities. Section 7 outlines the mechanism to deliver the strategy and identifies key stakeholders and is followed by a deliverable long term Action Plan. It also includes indicative or preliminary scheme cost estimates where they are available and possible funding sources. The front of the Action Plan table outlines progress made on delivery since 2009, highlighting those proposals that have been constructed, are under construction or have a confirmed funding commitment.

Traffic leaving Sudden Junction

Tram approaching Kingsway Business Park Stop (Courtesy of STORM)

3 Page 7

4 Page 8 2. Strategic Context

This section sets out the existing policy context within which the strategy will be justified and implemented.

2.1 Rochdale Borough Sustainable Community Strategy (2011-2021)

The Rochdale Borough Sustainable Community Strategy (2011-2021) was produced in June 2011. Although transport and accessibility issues do not feature as a specific aim, transport network improvements contribute to delivery of the wider aspirations of the Sustainable Communities Strategy which are :  People – we will promote healthy, safe and happy lives through prevention and personalisation of care, growing self-esteem, confidence and responsibility,  Place – we will create high quality places where people choose to be,  Prosperity – we will grow enterprise, ambition and skills to succeed.

Through consultation, the priorities that emerged from the public were:  Economy – work, skills and improve Rochdale Town Centre and the retail offer;  Identity Promotion and Citizenship – promote and encourage community responsibility, empower and use the third sector, focus on fewer things and do them well;  Health and Wellbeing – focus on reducing addictions, stop importing deprivation and promote personalised care;  Children and Young People – raise aspirations and self-esteem, provide more work opportunities and develop responsibility;  Environment – cleaner town centre, less litter, improve dilapidated buildings;  Safety - deal with poor perception of crime, ensure people feel safe and reduce anti- social behaviour.

Although the links are not recognised in the Sustainable Community Strategy travel planning and proposals to improve accessibility can contribute to these priorities (economy, young people and children, environment and safety in particular) and aspirations. Common thrusts running through these are to strengthen access, maintain travel affordability to employment and training opportunities as well as local amenities (the Council’s levy from TfGM in part supports provision of subsidised public transport services and Demand Responsive Transport (DRT)), enhancing town centre environments and improving local and community safety.

2.2 Rochdale Borough Renaissance Masterplan

This provides an overview supporting the Sustainable Community Strategy and Local Development Framework and highlights the importance of access and transport within its vision to develop the Borough as “an attractive location with a great quality of life and distinctive identity that is an integral part of a vibrant city region”.

Its spatial framework includes;  an M62 investment corridor (eg. HA’s M62 J18-20 hard shoulder running proposals);  Metrolink Regeneration corridor (eg LSTF sustainable access proposals);  Enhancing town centres (eg Metrolink, Rochdale PT Interchange, Cycle Hubs); and  Improving Green Infrastructure (eg LSTF sustainable access proposals, PROW Network).

The masterplan has seven themes, of which transport infrastructure improvements can contribute to Developing 21st Century Employment, Thriving Town Centres, Capitalising on Environmental Assets, Enhancing Strategic Corridors and Gateways, in particular in delivering “Accessible and Sustainable Transport”. This theme uses this transport strategy as its policy base and seeks radical improvement in the public transport network to enhance connections within the Borough and to the wider city region,

5 Page 9 The masterplan also aims to provide a strong heart, providing access to town centres, promoting greater density of development around public transport hubs and interchanges (railway and bus stations and Metrolink stops). Future town centre developments will be required to provide a wider range of land uses with greater emphasis on employment, residential and leisure as well as retail to maintain and enhance their economic vibrancy and viability. They are also the locations that are most accessible and offer the greatest travel choice..

The Borough masterplan views enhanced operability of strategic transport routes as a vital asset to industry and economic growth and journeys can be made reliably and efficiently to / from the wider GM sub-region and beyond. Since it was produced, a number of strategic transport proposals have progressed. The Northern Hub rail proposal to construct the Ordsall Chord linking Manchester Piccadilly and Victoria stations and Calder Valley Line capacity improvements as well as electrification of the North West triangle and the Trans-pennine line between Manchester and York via Huddersfield and Leeds have been announced. Construction of the Todmorden Curve enabling direct rail services between Blackburn, Accrington and Burnley and Manchester has started. Supporting this, the Council has established Masterplans for Rochdale Station Gateway and Heywood and Castleton both of which focus around the respective railway stations.

With regard to strategic highway network, the Highways Agency has secured commitment to the M62 hard shoulder running scheme between Junction 18 and 20. All of these measures will assist delivery of Borough Renaissance Masterplan aspirations.

Alongside these, the masterplan is a strong driver for improvements to Metrolink and continuous enhancement of the bus, pedestrian and cycle networks and quality streetscape design to enhance residential environments and local safety and enhance routes to local amenities / jobs.

2.3 Greater Manchester Strategy

Originally published by AGMA in August 2009 the GM Strategy set out key priorities to enable the sub-region to achieve its economic potential. It is currently being refreshed to take account of a range of changes influencing GM’s future economic performance and delivery of the sub-region’s aspirations. The Strategy is predicated on the Manchester Independent Economic Review (MIER) 2009 findings which estimated that 25% of the productivity gap between GM and the UK as a whole was caused by higher than average levels of worklessness and lower levels of economic activity than many other areas The remaining 75% is attributed to lower levels of economic output with people in work being less productive than elsewhere in the UK. Low workforce skill levels are also a critical issue.

Alongside the vision that “by 2020 the Manchester City Region will have pioneered a new model for sustainable economic growth based on a more connected, talented and greener city region where all our residents are able to contribute and benefit from sustained prosperity”. Key objectives to achieving this include:  Being known for our good quality of life, our low carbon economy and our commitment to sustainable development;  Creating a city region where every resident, neighbourhood and borough can contribute to and benefit from our shared sustainable future; and  Continue to grow into a fairer, healthier, safer and more inclusive place to live known for excellent efficient value for money services and transport choices.

Key to delivering this vision, the draft GM Strategy Refresh mirrors central government’s priorities of maximise economic growth and unconditional reform to reduce reliance on public services almost to the exclusion of all other priorities. Actions in the strategy to which transport contributes are :-  Identifying the land offer required for commercial and industrial development that offers flexibility of use and cost efficiency in locations where the market wants to go, supported by the infrastructure required to help businesses grow and flourish; 6 Page 10  Development of a GM approach to meet future housing and employment land needs based on developing spatial options to meet demand based on viability, strategic fit, transport and other infrastructure implications.  Prepare an infrastructure plan (by mapping the investment needed in current and new infrastructure against “growth locations”) to support resilient low carbon growth;  Develop new methods of infrastructure investment to support growth, including the UK guarantee scheme, an “earnback model” and the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL).  Improve GM’s connectivity locally, nationally and internationally by:- o Continuing to deliver the significant funded and planned investment in GM’s transport network to link people and neighbourhoods with jobs, and businesses with supply chains and local, national and international markets; o Capitalize on the opportunities provided by GM’s unique governance structures and partnership arrangements to secure enhanced connectivity across GM, nationally and internationally; o Invest in strategic hubs and networks for passengers and freight; o Initiate a pilot electric vehicle charging infrastructure programme; o Develop new smart card technology providing payment and information systems to better enable commuters to take ever smarter choices in their travel options in the interests of network efficiency and environmental sustainability; o Deliver a step change in smarter travel choices and active travel; and o Develop GM as a “low carbon hub” to seize opportunities of low carbon transition and deliver our targets to reduce carbon emissions by 48% by 2020 from 1990 levels.

The draft GM strategy sets a transport target of its success as 35% of all peak time journeys being made by modes other than the private car by 2020.

Kingsway Business Park Spine Road – Night Time Construction

2.4 Greater Manchester Third Local Transport Plan (2011-2016)

The Third GM Local Transport Plan (LTP3) published in April 2011 sets out the plans and spending priorities of the GMCA (Greater Manchester Transport Authority) as the Local Transport Authority, Transport for Greater Manchester (TfGM), the ten GM local authorities and other key partners. A key driver of this is the Greater Manchester Strategy and the GM “City Deal” key priorities within it to enable the sub-region to meet its economic potential.

7 Page 11 The core objectives of LTP3 are to:  ensure the transport network supports the Greater Manchester economy and improve the life chances of residents and business success;  ensure that carbon emissions from transport are reduced in line with UK government targets in order to minimise the impact of climate change;  ensure that the transport system facilitates active, healthy lifestyles, reduced casualties and minimise other health impacts;  ensure the design and maintenance of the transport network and service provision supports sustainable neighbourhoods and public spaces and provides equality of transport opportunities; and  maximise value for money in provision and maintenance of transport infrastructure and services.

These objectives will be delivered by :

Promoting travel choice and achieving growth in travel by modes other than by single occupancy private car.

Better Buses – Proposals in Rochdale Borough including the new Transport Interchange and a route to / from Middleton within the Cross City Bus Package. As funding permits bus network coverage will be improved with more orbital and door to door services, Metroshuttle is expected to expand into more town centres, the case will be put for more yellow buses and links between bus / rail / Metrolink services will be improved. Passenger facilities at bus stations / stops will improve and additional bus priority measures will be identified to improve journey reliability.

Delivering the Metrolink Vision – including the Manchester to Rochdale Town Centre via Oldham Line including town centre extensions.

A Rail System for our future economy – Many improvements depend on rail industry investment if they are to be delivered. GM’s rail aspirations are:  additional rolling stock to alleviate overcrowding; increased network capacity (including the Todmorden Curve re-instatement);  station upgrades;  line electrification;  enhance service patterns and frequencies;  improved train and station standards;  support for High Speed Rail; and  improved rail freight capacity and movement efficiency.

Measures include station improvements at Manchester Victoria and additional park and ride at some stations. Many of these proposals will be delivered through the Northern Hub package of improvements e.g. Ordsall Chord enabling Calder Valley line rail services to cross Manchester City Centre and offer direct access to Manchester Airport and destination in the Midlands and Southern England.

The Council welcomes these proposals, but is specifically seeking investment in the Calder Valley Line linking Manchester and Rochdale with Halifax, Bradford and Leeds to reduce journey times and improve service frequency and quality. It also seeks the current electrification proposal through Manchester to be extended to Rochdale by 2016, with in the longer term extending to Halifax, Bradford and Leeds. Investment to transform Rochdale Railway Station into a strong gateway to the town to complement and support the Metrolink works and create a worthy interchange facility and provide a transport focus for the Rochdale Station Gateway Masterplan.

Fares, ticketing and information – simplify fare systems across bus, rail and tram with day and season ticket options that meet travel need supported by an electronic smart card. Improve travel information services that allow residents, businesses and commuters to plan their journeys and travel more sustainably. 8 Page 12

Active Travel – Promoting walking and cycling is central to the GMLTP3 strategy and offers significant public health, safety, environmental benefits and community cohesion benefits. The sub-region is exploiting the opportunities presented through the Local Sustainable Transport Fund (LSTF) and Cycle Ambition Grants to deliver major improvements. Making shorter trips by active means will be encouraged, backed by speed reduction measures where there is a clear need and ensure better maintenance to support road safety walking and cycling.

Highways and Freight Managing highways - by maintaining road network quality and demand on local roads. Improved reliability on strategic roads will be achieved through optimising traffic signals, TRO’s and traffic lane use. GMRAPS (Greater Manchester Road Activities Permit Scheme) sets standard conditions for works on the highway in the sub-region and to manage and co-ordinate works to minimise congestion and disruption. The GM Traffic Control Centre will also improve incident and routine management to provide accurate, reliable and up to date traffic information. Highway maintenance is vital to maintaining a strong economy. Value for money from maintenance budget will be maximised and innovations will be explored to bring in additional resources.

Car parking – sufficient capacity will be provided to support economic growth whilst restricting demand, to encourage use of sustainable transport. Appropriate parking capacity will be provided in town centres and for new developments and increased park and ride at tram stops and railway stations. Disabled people’s parking spaces will be provided in line with prevailing standards..

Freight – GM’s economy can only function with effective transport and logistics, therefore improving the efficiency / reliability of these movements will be sought whilst minimising environmental impact and enhancing safety. Policies for traffic management, rail, road safety, air quality and low carbon are closely aligned.

Demand management – This is necessary to complement other proposals, whilst not bringing forward any congestion charging proposals, other measures appropriate to specific locations will control demand. These will be based on reducing need to travel, allocating more unused highway space for public transport, pedestrians and cyclists and adopting parking policies that make long stay commuter parking less attractive.

Other Issues Safe and secure travel – through local road safety training, publicity and education; measures to minimise conflict, driver improvement programmes and travel and safety information will be strengthened. Pedestrian priority measures including 20mph zones in residential areas will continue to be introduced where there is need, safety / security at public transport interchanges will be enhanced.

Accessible Transport – continued improvement through travel training schemes and addressing disabled people’s travel priorities through increasing options for independent travel for all.

Greener Transport – encourage people to use their cars less and ensure everyone is aware of their travel options, promoting walking and cycling for short journeys. Rail and water borne freight travel is being promoted to reduce the volume of HGVs on the roads where transference is viable. Car clubs and car sharing is also encouraged. A new Air Quality Action Plan (GM AQAP) will be produced to tackle pollution on busy traffic corridors alongside tackling climate change. More “green buses” will be introduced and work to develop and promote a network of electric vehicle charging points is ongoing.

2.5 Greater Manchester Transport Fund

This was set up by AGMA in July 2009 and is a Major Transport Scheme Prioritisation and Funding Strategy focussed on delivering maximum economic benefit to Greater Manchester, consistent with positive social and environmental package outcomes. It is funded through prudential borrowing alongside local contributions from: 9 Page 13  a 40% top slice of GM LTP Integrated Transport funding until 2018: plus  funding generated by annual increases in the TfGM levy on local authorities for each of 6 years from 2010-2011 to 2015-2016.

The schemes within Rochdale Borough included in the Greater Manchester Transport Fund that are still to be delivered are:  Rochdale Metrolink Phase 3B (Railway Station to Town Centre),  Cross City Bus Corridor Route to / from Middleton  Congestion and Bus Priority Measures in Bury and Heywood.

The fund also supported Metrolink Phase 3A including the Kingsway Stop and the Metrolink / Rail Park and Ride facility at Rochdale Station. Rochdale PT Interchange is also funded through GMTF and will be operational in October 2013.

2.6 Local Sustainable Transport Fund (LSTF)

LSTF was established to enable transport authorities to bid for a pot of funding for measures that reflected the government’s objectives to support economic growth by improving transport links and reduce greenhouse gas emissions from transport.

In July 2011 TfGM where awarded a £4.9 million settlement phased over 2011-2012 to 2014- 2015 for the key component element of the bid of which Rochdale MBC secured £116 000 to fund the provision of a new cycle hub proposed in the grounds of Nye Bevin House, the main health centre in Rochdale located close to the railway station and Metrolink stop.

The LSTF large projects component bid secured a £32.4 million allocation to TfGM in June 2012 phased over 2012-2013 to 2014-2015. A further £21 million in of local contributions from across Greater Manchester have been identified to support this award giving a programme of just over £55 million. The LSTF packages proposed are projected to take 26 million commuter car journeys off the network and generate an additional 10 million public transport journeys and 2 million additional cycle journeys. It is expected to add £28 million in GVA (Gross Value Added) and create 900 job equivalents across GM. Around 1000 tonnes of carbon and a million person hours of travel time a year will be saved.

Rochdale Council’s element of this bid was for a series of measures to improve access to the Borough’s railway stations and Metrolink stops and secured an allocation of up to £1.003 million.

Improvements in public transport access to Kingsway Business Park have been delivered through LSTF. The business park currently has around 1500–2000 employees. This is anticipated to rise to 7000+ when the site is built out, For some time the Business Park was only served by a Local Link service carrying passengers to and from adjacent and nearby communities, however the “Kingsway Link” service started to run offering access for employees who work shifts and enhancing the previous Local Link service to cover a wider range of areas. Kingsway Link provides access from Smithy Bridge, Littleborough and Newhey in addition to interchange with Rochdale Station. The enhanced service also serves the Sholver, High Crompton and Royton within Oldham MBC.

These services will be promoted to job seekers and new employees in particularly through Job Centre Plus who will have trained staff. This will be supported by personalised travel planning initiatives across communities adjacent to Rochdale Canal and in Shaw to further promote awareness of travel options and encourage behavioural change. Area travel planning will also be strengthened offering support to businesses in Rochdale Town Centre and Kingsway. LSTF expenditure in the borough at the end of 2012-2013 was £2.369 million.

10 Page 14

Cycling along Rochdale Canal

Rochdale Borough will also benefit from a range of other LSTF initiatives being delivered across the GM sub-region. The GM Commuter Cycle Key Component Project focusses on increasing the number of people cycling to work through provision of secure cycle parking (650 spaces at 7 hubs and 450 additional places at cycle compounds) including the facility at Rochdale Health Centre. This infrastructure is supported by a Cycle Training for Adults initiative to Bikeability Level 3 along their route to work. This targets new commuters and is provided by partner organisations growing their existing projects.. LSTF is funding over 3 300 places across Greater Manchester and this is matched by a similar level of locally funded places.

Cycle maintenance workshops and drop in events for small and medium sized businesses are being LSTF supported. These are being run by Bike User Groups (BUGS) offering 1375 places. These activities will be supported by promotional material eg newsletters etc.

The Bike to Work and Bike – Back to Work schemes will enable potential cyclists without a machine to trial cycle commuting. LSTF will finance machines with lights, helmets etc which will be loaned for a trial period to businesses and people seeking / starting / returning to work with journeys of less than 5 miles. If they are still using the bike as their main mode of travel to work at the end of the trial period they have an option to purchase the machine at a discount (or if coming off benefits, at no cost).

Other LSTF packages being delivered include technological initiatives to lock in wider GM investment benefits. These include smartcard travel information, smart ticketing and active traffic management to improve the efficiency of traffic control on key radial and artery routes. These measures enable businesses to maintain and widen access to a broader labour market skills base and maintain the operational efficiency of the transport network, speeding up and improving bus service reliability. There is also a package of measures to improve sustainable surface access to Manchester Airport and the adjacent Airport City developments.

2.7 Unitary Development Plan (UDP) and Local Development Framework (LDF)

The transport policies in the Rochdale Unitary Development Plan (adopted June 2006) will be superseded by the Local Development Framework Core Strategy when it is approved. There are some UDP policies however that remain of relevance. The LDF Core Strategy includes a

11 Page 15 framework that supports the Council’s spatial strategy to 2028 and identifies proposals to deliver new development and economic growth but with regard to social and environmental issues.

The Core Strategy concentrates the majority of new development in the south of the Borough. Economic growth areas include all the main township centres, Rochdale Canal Basin and the area around the railway station and south to Kingsway, Sudden / Castleton, M62 corridor and East Middleton (Town Centre to Mills Hill Railway Station). Many of the proposals put forward in this strategy are to enhance access and connectivity to these areas.

The accessibility hierarchy developed in the UDP (Policy A/2) is carried forward into the LDF (Policy T2) and will influence design principles of all proposals on the transport network and the layout of development; it prioritises user needs as follows:  People with impaired mobility and pedestrians;  Cyclists;  Public Transport (Bus, Heavy and Light Rail);  Taxis, private hire vehicles and commercial traffic for local access;  Powered Two-Wheeled Vehicles  Commercial traffic requiring local access  Shopping, Visitors / Tourists and off peak traffic;  Long Stay and Peak time Commuter Traffic.

The safety, accessibility and amenity needs of residents and local community service users and those meeting local economic needs will be considered before the needs of through traffic on local routes. Transport and development access proposals that do not demonstrably follow this hierarchy will require re-design or revision.

The approach in UDP Policy G/A/1 (P151) will also remain a relevant policy:

“The Council will facilitate accessibility for all, by integrating land use development and transport, reducing the need to travel, widen travel choice and encourage change in travel behaviour by enhancing walking, cycling and public transport travel opportunities. Development and transport proposals will be located, designed and integrated with their surroundings to: . reduce the growth and length of motorised, particularly single occupancy journeys . facilitate access by walking, cycling and public transport – including for people with restricted mobility, widening travel choice for all and reducing reliance on private car use, . provide access to motorised vehicles to meet the operational needs of development, while minimising adverse impacts on local communities and the environment, and . facilitate movement of goods by rail and other low carbon alternatives where practicable”.

Tram approaching Rochdale Railway Station Stop (Courtesy of STORM) 12 Page 16 The LDF Core Strategy Spatial Strategy focuses development in the south of the Borough closer to the motorway corridors, and Heavy Rail / Metrolink corridors, core bus routes and key transport hubs and interchanges. It also identifies economic growth corridors, housing and mixed-use regeneration areas and broad areas / strategic sites for development while making the best use of the existing network and identifying new schemes / proposals that provide sustainable access.

Transport investment will be focussed where it minimises travel need particularly at peak times, while maximising connectivity (to and from large trip generators), accessibility (by sustainable forms of travel), reliability (predictable travel times) and opportunities to use sustainable forms of travel. Links will be enhanced to:  improve inter and sub-regional links to neighbouring centres including Manchester City Centre, Manchester International Airport, destinations across the North and further south (including the capital),  better access key transport interchange and hub facilities  better access to proposed development focus areas and town centres,

In developing a sustainable low carbon integrated transport system that meets residents’ aspirations and supports economic growth and social regeneration in the Borough, while reducing environmental impact. The Council will continue to work with partners to address constraints by:  Enhancing sustainable and low carbon transport links to economic growth areas and strategic development sites in the motorway corridor;  improving links between centres, within the Borough, to / from neighbouring centres, the regional centre and other key regional destinations such as Manchester Airport,  Improving access to the public transport network and tackle congestion by providing better interchange and hub facilities thereby enhancing travel choice;  Providing access for all to development focus areas and town centres;  Reducing the need to travel and make best use of the existing transport infrastructure;  Keeping traffic moving and improving journey reliability by making best use of the existing transport network,  Improving local links to town centres, local community amenities and services.

The basis for the proposals set out in the action plan in Section 8 of this document is outlined in Policy T1 of the Council’s LDF Core Strategy. This strategic approach will be supported by Development Management policies addressing the transport impacts, accessibility requirements and parking standards for major developments. These are backed by a series of Supplementary Planning Document’s (SPDs) for example on Travel Planning and New Development which offer advice on the producing travel plans, their content, benefits and design standards required for new developments. The location, surroundings and impacts of developments from the application of the Council’s Accessibility Hierarchy will be taken into account.

2.8 Economic Development Strategy

Rochdale Borough’s Economic Development Strategy seeks the transformation of the local economy and sets out priorities to:- . increase productivity, . raise skill levels and reduce worklessness, . improve infrastructure and attract investment, . improve quality of life and the attractiveness of the Borough.

Transport investment is a specific part of the priority of improving infrastructure and attracting investment that will ‘Promote integrated transport and communications, infrastructure and networks’

Key actions to achieve this are:- . continue to improve road links to city region and national road networks, . ensure a modern, quality public transport system linking the Borough with the city region and national transport networks, 13 Page 17 . develop a public transport system, to efficiently link commercial development with residential areas. . develop information and Communication Technology (ICT) infrastructure to support economic transformation.

Rhodes Business Park

2.9 National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)

NPPF (DCLG/DfT March 2012) was produced by central government to streamline planning policy. The transport section replaces PPG13 and the Framework is a thread through land use planning decision making assuming a presumption in favour of sustainable development to support the drive for economic growth. Carbon reduction is also viewed as a key element as the government seeks the transition of the economy to a low carbon future reducing changing climate and advocating the reuse of existing resources.

NPPF acknowledges the role of transport in facilitating development and contributing to wider economic growth, sustainability and health objectives. It emphasises a balance in favour of encouraging sustainable travel and offering people choice in how they travel, promoting smarter use of technologies that provide more information and enable reduction in the need to travel. The framework also recognises that different policies and measures will be required in different communities to address specific local issues and so they vary in urban compared with rural areas. Solutions that contribute to reducing congestion and greenhouse gas emissions are encouraged and development patterns should maximise opportunities to travel by sustainable modes.

NPPF transport objectives are to:  Facilitate economic growth through a positive approach in planning for development; and  Support reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and congestion, and promote accessibility through planning the pattern and mix of development that, where reasonable to do so, facilitates travel by sustainable modes of transport.

All developments generating significant numbers of trips (determined by local criteria) will be supported by a Transport Assessment or Transport Statement and decisions will consider whether:

14 Page 18  Opportunities for sustainable transport modes have been taken up, depending on the site nature and location, to reduce the need for major transport infrastructure;  Safe and suitable site access for all can be achieved; and improvements undertaken within the transport network that cost effectively limit the development impacts. Development should only be prevented or refused on transport grounds where the residual development impacts are severe.

Opportunities for the use of sustainable transport modes to move goods and people should be protected and exploited, therefore development should be located and designed where practical to:  Accommodate efficient delivery of goods and supplies;  Give priority to pedestrian and cycle movements, and access to high quality public transport facilities;  Create safe and secure layouts minimising conflict between traffic and cyclists / pedestrians, avoiding street clutter and establishing "home zones" where appropriate;  Incorporate facilities for charging plug-in and other ultra-low emission vehicles; and  Consider the needs of disabled people by all transport modes.

NPPF maintains that the planning system has "environmental, social and economic roles are mutually dependent" and therefore should be sought jointly and simultaneously in delivering sustainable solutions that enhances people's quality of life through;  Making it easier for jobs to be created in cities, towns and villages;  Moving from net biodiversity loss to gain;  Replace poor design with quality design;  Improve conditions in which people live, work, travel and take leisure; and  Widen the choice of high quality homes.

Local authorities will seek to improve the quality of parking in town centres to offer convenience, safety and security. Parking charges should be of a level that does not undermine town centre vitality, with proportionate enforcement regimes. Local Planning Authorities will identify and protect, where evidence is robust, sites and routes that are critical to developing the transport infrastructure and widen travel choice.

2.10 Climate Change and Air Quality

Through the Climate Change Act 2008 a UK carbon emission target was set to bring down CO2 emission levels by 80% in 2050 from 1990 baseline levels, with an intermediate reduction of 34% to be achieved by 2020. This is a more ambitious target than those set previously and likely to become more challenging over time. To achieve them, a shift in societal travel behaviour is required as transport is a major contributor to greenhouse gas emissions, with people travelling less and an increase in the proportion of trips made by low carbon modes. DfT guidance on delivering low carbon travel to address transport impact on CO2 emissions has been produced to guide future LTP’s. It requires consideration of a wide range of initiatives including promoting sustainable travel, and “softer” travel options focussed on walking, cycling and behavioural change.

It is accepted that transport is the source of around 25% of total greenhouse gas emissions up from 9% in 1990. Journeys less than 5 miles account for 21% of CO2 emissions and 64% from trips less than 25 miles. Enabling more of these journeys to be made by sustainable travel modes will help to tackle climate change. DfT strategy focuses on de-carbonising transport, advocating a mix of policies relevant to each travel mode reducing its overall CO2 contribution which includes:  Reducing the number of trips and the need to travel;  A greater role for public transport whilst continuing to increase carbon efficiency;  Promoting other sustainable modes (walking, cycling and travel behaviour change);  Promotion and investment in new technologies and cleaner fuels; and

15 Page 19  Shifts in fiscal policy and use of trading methods to reduce emissions from aviation and shipping (not within the remit of this strategy).

2.11 Heath and Well Being

A key priority in the Sustainable Communities Strategy for the Borough is “Improving the Health and Well Being” of people in the Borough. Transport policy can contribute to achieving this by providing opportunities for sustainable travel (public transport, walking and cycling) to access jobs, training and local amenities. Active travel encourages exercise, improving the fitness of people, reduces motorised travel and therefore traffic emissions and air quality, so contributing to tackling climate change. Improving sustainable transport also assists travel choice in accessing local health care and the Council is working with GM transport and NHS partners to establish a Transport Bureau to assist people to access their health care sustainably.

Cycling in Rochdale Borough

2.12 Wider Governance Changes

Since the Transport Strategy was first produced in 2009 sub-regional transport governance has changed with the introduction of Integrated Transport Authorities through the Local Transport Act 2008 and the formation of Transport for Greater Manchester and the abolition of Regional Assemblies and Regional Development Agencies which have been replaced by Local Enterprise Partnerships with a much more focused aim of delivering economic growth. The Localism Bill has also been introduced to empower local areas to develop Neighbourhood Plans for their communities to decide where future development should go. Currently Littleborough is the only location working towards the development of a Neighbourhood Plan.

These along with government austerity measures mean the roles and the powers of influence of local Councils are changing. Policy development has been passed to the sub-regional level and Local Authorities have a partnership and consultative rather than a leadership role. Emphasis is being placed on Council through “duties to co-operate” with partners, with a government-lead drive for economic growth and reducing the impacts of climate change overriding other policies. These often in reality, conflict.

A Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) has been set up and in operation covering Greater Manchester and will have a key influence in deciding transport priorities for the sub-region 16 Page 20 alongside the Greater Manchester Combined Authority (GMCA). A GM Local Transport Board (LTB) is being established to decide on these priorities which will influence the major schemes to be allocated LTP funding, those in the Greater Manchester Transport Fund and those financed through the City Deal “Earnback”.

It is also clear that both government austerity and recent pattern of transport funding secured by TfGM is resulting in more funding remaining with sub-regional bodies and the funding allocations trickling down to local authorities to address their local priorities is reducing. Current policy emphasis is on strategic improvements that maximize sub-regional economic growth is frustrating to local communities who have seen transport funding for their priorities squeezed. The fragmentation of funding sources strengthens the need for this strategy to lobby for resources to deliver the Borough’s transport infrastructure priorities and to support solid and justifiable business cases for individual schemes.

17 Page 21 3. Current Situation – Movement Patterns in Rochdale Borough

The “Northern Way” concept developed some years ago provided the strategic context underpinning development of the transport network in Northern England. Rochdale Borough is well situated on the edge of the Manchester City Region and adjacent to the Leeds City Region, and is working with partners and stakeholders across the North to exploit opportunities to drive economic growth through new investment in development, regeneration and transport infrastructure as well as close the performance disparity between the Northern economy and that of the South East. This Transport Strategy supports Rochdale Borough’s Renaissance Masterplan and enables the area to take advantage of local economic growth opportunities and the challenges that life in the Borough presents.

Rochdale Borough, on the edge of the Pennines, located in the north east of Greater Manchester has an established administrative affinity with the sub-region, but also with East Lancashire, the Pennines and western parts of West Yorkshire. Rochdale, the sub-regional centre, and the towns of Heywood, Middleton, Milnrow and Littleborough have good access to M62 which passes east- west through the borough, the M66 south-north from the M62 along the western edge of Heywood and the M60 ring road around Manchester runs to the south of Middleton. These routes experience congestion for much of the working day and the heavy traffic flows frequently lead to delays. Diversion routes are also sensitive to incidents that inhibit motorway traffic movements diverting unsuitable volumes of traffic and large goods vehicles through residential areas, particularly in and around Middleton and Heywood. The Council, in delivering its transport strategy will work with partner organisations including the Highways Agency to ensure compatibility in managing trip demand between the local and strategic highway network.

The Borough’s has a traditional employment base. This contributes to its travel to work patterns being relatively self-contained with around 77% of local commuter journeys made within the Borough. The reliance on a declining manufacturing sector however makes the local economy vulnerable to change. Extensive efforts are being made to grow and modernise it by broadening its economic base, developing a skilled workforce and attracting more, higher value employment opportunities to the Borough. Although close to Manchester City Centre, the Borough does not sufficiently exploit this proximity to it, and whilst 9 600 of its residents travel to work in the regional centre (2001 Census), this will increase if access to the rapid economic growth and high value employment opportunities offered by the regional centre can be better connected to the borough’s workforce.

Employment opportunities within the borough will be maximised, but people must also be encouraged to consider and take up job opportunities elsewhere, through competing for higher earning posts. This strategy recognises and promotes this, alongside improving connectivity within the Borough and seeks to offer feasible alternatives to the high proportion of short distance car commuter trips made within the borough. There is a need to strengthen and publicise the sustainable transport offer to relieve bottlenecks and promote modal shift.

The strongest links to Manchester in the Borough are from Middleton, due its close proximity, accounting for 15% of morning commuter journeys out of the township. If future employment opportunities are to be exploited by the Borough’s workforce, investment and commitment to re- training will also be needed enabling individuals to compete for more skilled and higher value posts. At present the Borough’s workforce is relatively low skilled and low earning, therefore travel to work time horizons are relatively short. This accounts for the localised travel to work patterns within the Borough as workers cannot afford, or is not prepared to commute longer distances. People in higher skilled jobs with larger incomes are prepared to travel further eg. to Manchester City Centre and other neighbouring centres that have good public transport links, as well as being accessible by car.

There are also substantial travel to work flows between Rochdale and Oldham (13 800 in total) demonstrating a strong relationship between the two boroughs and adding to the flows across the southern boundary of the borough. 18 Page 22

The tables below indicate the modal split of travel to work trips from the borough as well as employment status, levels of car ownership and where people work. A comparison is made with Greater Manchester and England and Wales for all but the last of these parameters. Percentage figures are used.

Name Work Tram Train Bus. Motorcycle Car or On By Other Total mainly at (%) (%) Minibus or Scooter Van (%) foot Bicycle (%) employed or from Coach (%) Moped (%) (%) (%) people 16- home (%) 74 (%) England & 10.66 3.74 4.97 7.15 0.78 59.19 9.75 2.78 0.97 100.00 Wales

Greater 8.45 1.29 2.49 10.51 0.55 63.49 9.92 2.05 1.25 100.00 Manchester

Rochdale 8.23 0.20 1.98 8.65 0.51 68.38 8.96 1.00 2.09 100.00 Table 3.1 - Travel Method to Work (2011 Census)

Name Employed Self- Unemployed Permanent Looking Full Time Full Time Retired Total (%) Employed (%) sick or after Home Student Student & Other People (%) Disabled or Family with job without (%) aged 16- (%) (%) (%) job (%) 74 (%) Rochdale 49.56 7.93 5.92 6.84 5.13 2.71 5.26 16.65 100.00 Greater 51.32 7.77 4.96 5.81 4.34 3.81 6.48 15.51 100.00 Manchester England & 52.19 9.71 4.37 4.17 4.33 3.43 5.81 15.99 100.00 Wales Table 3.2 - Employment Status (2011 Census)

Name No cars or 1 Car or van 2 cars or Vans 3 Cars or 4 or more Total Vans (%) (%) (%) Vans (%) Cars or Vans Households (%) (%) Rochdale 33.46 42.70 19.82 3.27 0.76 100.00 Greater 32.81 43.02 20.09 3.23 0.84 100.00 Manchester England & 26.79 43.80 23.53 4.51 1.38 100.00 Wales Table 3.3 - Car Ownership (2001 Census)

Name Work in Work in Work in Work in Work in GM Work in Work in Total Heywood Middleton Pennines Rochdale (not Rochdale NW (not UK (not Employed (%) (%) (%) (%) Borough (%) GM) (%) NW) (%) People 16- 74 (%) Rochdale 9.44 9.84 8.76 34.04 31.13 3.54 3.24 100.00 Greater 0.32 0.51 0.14 0.62 88.51 7.26 2.64 100.00 Manchester Table 3.4 – Where People Work (2001 Census)

This information emphasises the high proportion of people working within the Borough that travel to work by car compared with the rest of Greater Manchester and nationally. There are also a high proportion of households in Rochdale Borough (over a third and higher than the GM average) without access to a car and therefore reliant on sustainable and low carbon forms of travel. Bus use is below the GM average and there is capacity on the network to accommodate new passengers.

19 Page 23

Traffic at Sudden Junction

3.1 Township Travel Patterns

Rochdale Township – Most work trips are within the township or to other parts of the borough with only 54% of them made by car. The township has the highest levels of travel to work by sustainable modes. This could be due to low levels of car ownership (or registration). Car travel to Oldham and Bury is particularly high, indicating public transport alternatives (used by 10.8% and 9% respectively of people travelling to work) are not attractive, convenient, affordable or publicised well enough for commuters to choose it as a travel option. Preference is to travel by car, contributing to peak time delays experienced on local radial route between Rochdale and Oldham / Bury.

Pennines Township – The majority of travel to work trips are made within the Pennines or to Rochdale Township. Together with journeys to Manchester and Oldham these account for 76% of such journeys. 44% of journeys to Manchester City Centre are made by train, emphasising the importance of the Calder Valley Line for commuting, while almost 80% of trips to Oldham are made by car. This again suggests a lack of appeal that bus travel appears to offer. As an employment destination, Pennines Township is convenient for commuters from Calderdale and Rossendale, but over 29% of internal journeys in the township are made on foot, indicating a high number of short distance commutes.

Middleton Township - Although the highest proportion of trips, are made within the township, its travel to work pattern is more scattered to / from destinations outside the area (Manchester, Oldham, Salford and Trafford are all prominent). This reflects the location of the township being conducive to access areas of employment growth around the sub-region. The reliance on Rochdale Township is much less than for other parts of the Borough, and despite close proximity, travel to work trips to Bury are relatively low (2.3%). Bus use is significantly higher in Middleton Township than elsewhere in the Borough. Around 41% of journeys to work are to Manchester City Centre linked by a frequent, appealing and convenient bus service and the nearest railway station being located on the eastern boundary of the township. The proportion of bus journeys to Rochdale Township and Oldham are also noticeable.

Heywood Township – also has a contained travel pattern with a high proportion of journeys to work made on foot. This is indicative of low levels of car ownership (registration) and a lack of mobility of the local labour market. Travel by bus to and from the township other than to 20 Page 24 Middleton is low, surprising as Heywood has no public rail service. Rochdale Township, Bury, Manchester and Oldham feature prominently as travel to work origins / destinations with car travel being the dominant commuting mode, reinforcing the lack of appeal of sustainable transport alternatives.

Lorry movements and HGV routing is a key issue for Heywood Township, particularly to the commercial and distribution industries to the south of the town, but are also perceived to be high along A58 through the town centre. At present commercial traffic mainly accesses the South Heywood Commercial areas via M66 Junction 3, a route that is valued by local communities as it avoids built up areas. For haulage operators travelling to and from Yorkshire and the eastern part of the UK this route adds time, fuel costs and generates additional emissions not released if HGV’s were able to access directly from M62 Junction 19.

3.2 Sustainable Transport Network

The Calder Valley Railway Line (Manchester Victoria to Leeds) is heavily used, with Mills Hill, Castleton, Rochdale, Smithy Bridge and Littleborough stations serving the Borough. Both stopping (2 services an hour) and direct services (a further 2 services an hour) during the day operate along the route. Non-stop services take less than 15 minutes to travel between Rochdale and Manchester Victoria. Compared with Trans-Pennine Express services between Manchester and Leeds via Huddersfield however, services on the Calder Valley Line take around 45 minutes longer to travel between the two regional centres making them less attractive to business, economic, social and leisure travel. The historic lack of investment made in the line is a key factor. Morning peak time services particularly into Manchester operate at capacity the recent lengthening of services has addressed the regular occurrences of passengers being left on the station at Mills Hill station. The Northern Hub capacity and line speed improvements and cascading of more modern rolling stock through the HLOS (High Level Output Specification) process could offer further capacity improvements to accommodate further station stops and additional services through the Borough to meeting rising demand.

The Rochdale – Oldham Heavy Rail Loop line which closed in October 2009. It re-opened as a Metrolink route between Manchester and Rochdale Railway Station (via Oldham) with stops in the Borough at Newhey, Milnrow, Kingsway Business Park, Newbold (Kingsway) and Rochdale Railway Station on 28th February 2013. By Spring 2014 this line will be extended to Rochdale Town Centre. Services operate at 12 minute intervals (6 an hour) in each direction.

The privately operated East Lancashire Railway (ELR) line from Rawtenstall to Heywood via Bury is mainly used for leisure journeys, but an extension to link with the Calder Valley Line at Castleton is a realistic aspiration during the life of this plan and beyond that establishing a fixed line link between Heywood and Manchester City centre, providing East Lancashire Railway’s leisure offer is protected.

Rochdale MBC will support measures that promote and increase the movement of goods by rail and contribute to reducing commercial traffic on the Borough’s highway and motorway network. This a possible option to consider in providing sustainable access to the South Heywood Commercial Areas through the provision of a spur off ELR.

The main centres of the borough are well served by bus services; to Manchester via Middleton, Bury / Bolton via Heywood, Oldham / Ashton under Lyne and to Rossendale. All have at least 10 minute frequency on weekdays and Saturdays. They are supported by a network of services to local centres and residential areas around the borough. Patronage levels however are variable and dependent upon their perceived appeal and convenience to communities with those serving Middleton and Manchester and the Rochdale / Bury / Bolton route being noticeably popular.

Parts of the local network during the recession have been rationalised through combining routes and reducing service frequencies and subsidised and less lucrative routes to maintain their viability. The increasing cost of fuel and fuel grants to bus operators has limited opportunities to 21 Page 25 provide new services. Areas with high car ownership levels in the Borough serving Bamford and Norden have been most affected by bus service rationalisation in the Borough. The Council supports maintaining and strengthening of the bus network and have been working with TfGM on a number of initiatives to improve the network such as providing a direct bus link with Manchester Airport (a rail link will be provided via Ordsall Chord through the Northern Hub proposals by 2016) and to other strategic destinations without bus service access eg. Universities, Hospitals, Trafford Centre etc.

Littleborough Railway Station (Photo courtesy of Northern Rail)

Middleton Bus Station

22 Page 26 4. Key Issues

4.1 Connecting to Jobs, Education and Training Opportunities

Rochdale Borough is one of the most deprived districts in England, around 55,000 people (25% of the population of 211 700) live in areas in the 10% most deprived nationally. Some of these have poor transport connections to local jobs, education and training opportunities at major employment areas such as Kingsway Business Park, Stakehill and the South Heywood Industrial Areas, as well as good quality shopping, leisure, health and other local amenities. These issues are prevalent at three levels:  Strategically, accessing the rest of Greater Manchester (including the regional centre) and neighbouring towns and regions;  Borough wide, access within and across the borough; and  Locally, accessing local amenities, transport hubs and interchanges.

At Borough level, connectivity to Kingsway Business Park has been improved with the provision of the “Kingsway Link”. Funded through Local Sustainable Transport Funding (LSTF) this is a community / demand responsive transport service linking adjacent residential areas along Rochdale Canal, Littleborough, Smithybridge and areas of Oldham MBC to the business and employment opportunities on the Business Park. The service supports the existing access from Rochdale and Heywood and coincided at the end of February 2013 with the opening of the Metrolink Line between Manchester and Rochdale Railway Station via Oldham and the Kingsway Business Park stop. This has significantly enhanced access to the site particularly from surrounding areas some of which have high levels of worklessness and deprivation. The trial Middleton Local Link Service has also been extended. A daily door to door bus service this serves Kingsway Business Park (5am to 10-45pm as well as Birch Industrial Estate, Hopwood Hall College, North Manchester General and Royal Oldham Hospitals. These improved services are supported by extensive walking and cycling links to / from adjacent residential areas including the Connect 2 cycle route along Rochdale Canal which runs through the Borough.

A key issue for a lower skilled low paid workforce is the directness and affordability of travel. Fare level need careful consideration if those jobs are to be accessible and taken up by Rochdale Borough residents. With the number of jobs on the site exceeding 1500 (April 2013) and more development interest coming forward, limited public transport access was increasingly becoming a constraint. Projects being delivered though GM’s LSTF programme by TfGM, and its partners in conjunction with Job Centre Plus are aimed at enabling access to employment. In the future cross town services directly linking deprived areas north of Rochdale Town Centre and Rossendale could offer further benefits.

Ticket interoperability between modes of travel will become increasingly important during the life of this strategy. TfGM are committed to introducing a smartcard method of payment across GM initially on Metrolink but to become interoperable with the bus, rail and potential cycle hubs. For journeys to be affordable however there should be discount on multi-modal journeys compared with the fares charged for each leg of journeys as is the case with the Oyster Card in London.

While the authority and TfGM have focussed access to new employment areas, maintaining and strengthening access to the historic employment areas eg Stakehill and the distribution parks south of Heywood is also vital, as they restructure to meet the modern industry requirements.

4.2 Taking Advantage of our Strategic Location - Access to the Regional Centre

The borough will exploit opportunities that contribute its prosperity and that of the city region and the Northern Way corridor through access to areas fuelling economic growth, employment generation, improved access to local amenities and key services and facilities in neighbouring areas. This is vital in enhancing the prosperity of the Borough and helps to address local equality and deprivation issues. To achieve this in a sustainable manner, step change improvements in transit methods (for people, goods and information) and additional peak time network capacity 23 Page 27 are required, particularly through increased travel by non-car modes. The borough’s motorways are operating at capacity for much of the day despite the recent recession, leading to a fall in trip numbers, and the Highway Agency’s Managed Motorway proposals for hard shoulder running on the M62 between Junctions 18 and 20 are welcomed. Addressing freight access / route and capacity issues across the borough but particularly in the south is vital. This area has an economically thriving agglomeration of warehousing and distribution industries that generate significant numbers of heavy goods vehicle trips but raise concerns with affected local residential communities.

Rail access to the regional centre and beyond (to West Yorkshire and in the future East Lancashire) for employment and higher education is vital to Rochdale MBC. The Council seeks greater investment in the main line linking Manchester and Rochdale with Halifax, Bradford and Leeds to reduce journey times and enhance service quality and travel experience. The Council through the Northern Hub would wish to see electrification extended to Rochdale by 2016 and in the longer term, to Bradford and Leeds with substantial investment in Rochdale Railway Station to transform it into a welcoming and impressive gateway into the town that complements Metrolink and wider regeneration of the Station Gateway and Town Centre.

Access improvements to higher income employment opportunities offered across GM such as Salford Quays / Media Centre, Salford Crescent and Oxford Road Manchester to access the Universities and hospitals, Manchester Airport and the adjacent Airport City development, Port Salford in the future as well as Manchester City Centre is vital. This will widen the choice of employment opportunities available to Rochdale Borough’s workforce will assist local businesses by potentially bringing more spending power in to the local economy.

If local people are to secure these jobs, journey reliability and travel times will be key factors. In the light of this, journey times to the Salford area to the University, Media City, Salford Quays and in the future Port Salford need to be improved, and should require no more than one change of train. The Northern Hub proposals may assist this and with access to Manchester Airport and the proposed Airport City employment area. With regard to access to the Oxford Road corridor the Cross City Bus corridor will improve bus journey times from Middleton and offer a direct link.

Passengers at Middleton Bus Station

24 Page 28 4.3 Improving Access to Town and Local Centres and Transport Hubs

Access to the town centres across the borough is reasonably good for all modes, including by public transport, but sustainable access to community facilities (eg schools, colleges, health facilities, hospitals and parks) needs to be enhanced. Transport hubs and interchanges will in the future through LDF policies, provide gateways to more and better employment opportunities as well as providing new transport facilities. Convenience of access to sustainable travel is conducive to accessing high density employment uses close by. Continued improvement to interchanges enhances the public transport experience, with provision of clearer passenger information on vehicles and at stations; more comfortable waiting facilities and rolling stock, smart ticketing etc. all contribute to this. Providing convenient, safe cycling / walking networks with secure parking / changing facilities, innovative demand responsive and individualised travel planning will promote travel behaviour change and assist access to trip generating land uses.

4.4 Minimising Travel

Initiatives to change travel behaviour such as reviewing working practices, home working, enhanced IT and broadband networks to allow better transfer of information and intelligent transport management and control systems (ITMC) will promote the appeal of sustainable travel and reduce demand for travel on the existing transport network. These measures contribute to tackling climate change and a number of GMLTP3 targets including improving air quality in Air Quality Management Areas (AQMA’s).

4.5 Encouraging Walking and Cycling

Around 10% (2011 Census) of travel to work journeys in Rochdale Borough are made on foot or by cycle, below Greater Manchester levels (12%). Monitoring traffic into Rochdale Key Centre in 2012 show a 22% increase in walking in the morning peak, and a 3% increase in the evening peak (HFAS Report 1699 – Dec 2012). A significant fall in cycling (29% in the morning peak but shows a 21% increase in the evening peak however these changes can be erratic from year to year as cycle numbers are low. There are however, locations in the borough where new facilities have been installed and cycle flows have significantly increased from a low base e.g. Kingsway Business Park. It is these areas where the changes in cycle levels may be more representative.

The weather and topography of the Borough are significant in determining the attractiveness of cycling and walking as modes of travel, therefore it is more effective to improve routes where opportunities exist to enhance connectivity providing continuous cycle routes.

Addressing the needs of pedestrians and cyclists and promoting safe, secure access for them is a Council priority illustrated in the Council’s Accessibility Hierarchy developed in the UDP and continued in the Core Strategy (Policy T2). This provides a focus for delivering local connectivity by offering attractive safe cycle and walking routes and links to, local and community amenities, town centres, transport hubs and interchanges and employment areas that cyclists and pedestrians will use. To assist with this, new developments will link to or enhance existing pedestrian (with appropriate provision for people with mobility difficulties) and cycle networks. In Rochdale, both the town centre and railway station transport interchanges will include cycle hubs. Both modes should be promoted / supported as the dominant form of travel in the borough for short journeys, up to 2kms (walking) and a significant proportion of cycle journeys of up to 5kms. These thresholds are a guide.

It is anticipated that longer journeys and the needs of leisure cyclists will be addressed through strategies relating to Green Infrastructure and Green Network strategies. The latter has a target of 95% of households being within 800 metres of a green network route by 2020. Shorter links will be provided to connect with adjacent community facilities and employment areas. The Connect 2 Cycle Network proposals (delivered in partnership with Sustrans and the Canal and River Trust) completed at the end of 2012 is the first phase towards achieving this. This strategy seeks to further develop the strategic cycle network, through essentially a “Connect 3” network with partnership bodies to promote leisure and utility cycle trips. Improvements in pedestrian and 25 Page 29 cycle access to railway stations and Metrolink stops attracted just over £1 million from Greater Manchester’s LSTF main settlement.

Shopping in Rochdale Town Centre

The borough’s approach will contribute to developing a walking and cycle network consistent with GMLTP3 policy and Greater Manchester’s Cycling and Walking Strategies. The Council will lobby to exert greater influence through development of local strategies and action plans consistent with its Green Infrastructure Plans, Green Network proposals, Rights of Way Improvement Plan (which runs to 2017) and the Definitive Rights of Way map update and statement. These will identify a priority network and improvement proposals which prioritise strategic route investment that contributes to economic growth and enhance access to local and community amenities. Pedestrian and cycling audit will be enhanced and help to identify improvements in master- planning projects and feasibility studies, with deliverable proposals developed in programmes and action plans.

4.6 Prioritising Public Transport Improvements

Rail patronage consistently rose in the Borough between 1991 and 2008 with a 20% increase in the morning peak (about 1.2% a year), however in October 2009, the Oldham Loop Line closed for conversion to Metrolink taking morning peak rail patronage below 1991 levels (-11% in 2011). Off-peak rail patronage however has been strong with a 220% increase between 1991 and 2008 (just over 12.9% a year) and although since 2009 patronage levels have dropped, in 2011 they are still 59% above 1991 levels (equating to an increase of 2,95% a year).

Table 4.1 – Rochdale Borough Railway Station Usage since 2004-2005 (Source – Office of Rail Regulator) Station Year 2004- 2005- 2006- 2007- 2008- 2009- 2010- 2011- 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012* Litteborough 211598 223821 210712 236716 358176 344284 354046 384494 Smithybridge 91750 98319 93868 102499 125499 134410 141048 163018 Rochdale 598054 641487 651679 689574 971588 1001526 1061152 1106454 Castleton 80682 85695 87758 100345 122678 120382 126592 152856 Mills Hill 164520 183853 180271 198357 228836 256 506 283096 340862 TOTAL 1146604 1233175 1224288 1327491 1806777 1600602 1965934 2147684 26 Page 30 An indication of rail patronage changes in the Borough is represented in Table 4.1. It indicates that passengers using the 5 railway stations in the borough have steadily increased since 2004- 2005 (by 87.3%) and exceeded 2 million for the first time in 2011-2012

In 2009, 4.5 million bus miles were operated in Rochdale Borough in 2007 (most recent data), 4% less than 2006, however bus patronage across the borough has slowly increased underpinned by improvements on the Core Quality Bus Corridor network during this period.

The following public transport enhancements are priorities and aspirations for the borough to be delivered through this transport strategy are:

Improvements to the Heavy Rail System by:-  Upgrading the services and capacity on the Calder Valley Line (eg through Northern Hub and HLOS) and connectivity with Manchester Airport and destinations to the Midlands and the South, particularly London;  Extending the network by exploiting the potential of the East Lancashire Railway while protecting and enhancing the leisure offer;  Improvements to access and facilities including at the Borough’s Stations (including park and ride) to form recognised and established transport interchanges with other sustainable modes (bus, Metrolink, cycling, pedestrians park and ride) and enable access for all eg DDA compatible access at Mills Hill Station;  New and improved stations and rolling stock, implementation of the Northern Hub proposals in full and full electrification of the Calder Valley Line..

Improvements to the Bus Network by:  Enhancing interchange facilities in Rochdale Town Centre with Metrolink, taxis, cycles and Shopmobility,  Enhancing cross borough bus routes,  Enhancing access to employment / development growth areas and local amenities,  Enhancing access to Manchester City Centre and other neighbouring centres and strategic destinations,  Enhanced service co-ordination and interchange opportunities in Heywood.

Exploiting Metrolink by:  Provision of additional stops and Park and Ride facilities where there is demonstrable need,  Complete Phase 3B to Rochdale Town Centre,  Enhancing sustainable travel opportunities to access the tram network,  Improving integration between Metrolink, the local bus network and heavy rail at Rochdale Station,  Exploring the feasibility of extending the Metrolink network to other key centres.

4.7 Getting More from Heavy Rail Passenger Services

Heavy rail passenger services serving the Borough on the Calder Valley Line particularly at peak times are heavily used. Capacity of services into Manchester were exceeded with commuters at some stations (particularly Mills Hill) being unable to board their intended train. The introduction of additional (extremely aged) rolling stock has enabled services to be lengthened which has eased this. Additional services on Sundays have also eased overcrowding. The standard of rolling stock and journey comfort however, does not meet modern passenger expectations. The Council continues to work with neighbouring local authorities, the train operator, Transport for Greater Manchester (TfGM) and Metro (West Yorkshire ITA) to develop proposals and lobby for further capacity and service improvements initially to accommodate additional services using the reinstated Todmorden Curve, secure better rolling stock through HLOS (High Level Output Specification) and line speed and capacity improvements (through the Northern Hub). The Council seeks electrification to Rochdale by 2016 and in the long term its extension along the whole of the Calder Valley Line. 27 Page 31

Commitment to delivering the Northern Hub proposals in full is welcomed and expected to secure direct services through Manchester City Centre to the west, via Ordsall Chord and Piccadilly with connections beyond to the Midlands and South (including the Capital and Manchester Airport) to / from the Borough. These measures combined with enhanced integration with other transport modes will make a significant contribution to growing the local economy. It will also improve access to social amenities for the local communities served by the line. We will be lobbying in support of any business case required for these upgrades and capacity enhancements to the Calder Valley Line in the short / medium term and full electrification beyond 2018.

Capacity issues can be addressed by maximising use of the existing infrastructure through train lengthening and improved timetabling, backed by physical measures to enhance signalling and track infrastructure. Network improvements such as Todmorden Curve (under construction) and the extension of East Lancashire Railway will connect new communities e.g. Heywood to the wider rail network, and potentially enhance service frequency to all stations in the Borough. Capacity of the Calder Valley line will also be enhanced with implementation of the Northern Hub improvements at Rochdale Station. With the re-opening of the southern platform and the provision of turnback loops, stopping trains will be able to get out of the way of limited stop services. This in turn may free up capacity between Rochdale and Manchester to accommodate additional shuttle services. Together with the service from Blackburn / Accrington / Burnley via Todmorden Curve service frequencies at Rochdale station could increase to 6 an hour to and from the regional centre. If further capacity is required there are suggestions that the feasibility of a signalised turn back facility at Littleborough could be considered.

Train coming approaching Rochdale Station

In November 2009, TfGM commissioned Atkins to identify and appraise opportunities to improve transport links between an East Lancashire / West Rochdale Study Area (ELWRAS) and Manchester City Centre and other key employment destinations. An element of this was to explore the potential for using the heritage East Lancashire Railway Line (ELR) to operate commercial passenger services, preferably alongside the popular leisure services. The ELR Trust already has aspirations to extend the ELR line through Heywood to Castleton station with a cross platform link to the Calder Valley Line.

ELWRAS also considered other modes of travel which included:-

28 Page 32  A58 Bury – Rochdale bus and highway improvements – including dedicated bus priority improvements to and from M66 J2 at Heap Bridge;  Heywood Bus Interchange and passenger waiting facility improvements;  Extension of Metrolink network from Bury, north to Rawtenstall using East Lancs Railway; and  Strengthened X43 bus services from Rawtenstall to Manchester City Centre via M66.

The study concluded that operation of conventional passenger rail service between Rawtenstall and Manchester with the continued operation of Heritage Rail services was not financially viable, either in benefit to cost ratio terms or the level of ongoing revenue support needed. These outcomes should be reviewed in the light of any significant developments in delivering the critical elements of ELR 2020 Development Strategy. TfGM is working with ELR and the Council on the aspiration to extend the Heritage Railway to Castleton with associated improvements to Castleton Station aimed at linking and boosting patronage on the Calder Valley Line.

The ELWRAS study concluded that strengthening the X43 bus services between Rawtenstall and Manchester City Centre was the favoured option to improve public transport links into Manchester City Centre. This option offers no benefits to Heywood.

The bus priority and traffic management measures identified in ELWRAS are now being developed through into a package through a further TfGM commissioned study that is ongoing and improvements to pedestrian and cycle routes have been improved through the Connect 2 programme and the LSTF and other programmes to which the government is inviting bids.

The Council is not currently pursuing any new station proposals, as the priority is to improve services and journey times along the Calder Valley Line however this does not mean such proposals may not come forward in the future and their feasibility and business cases explored. The Council will continue to work in partnership with neighbouring authorities and the Rail Industry (Network Rail, TfGM and the Train Operating Companies) to protect existing service levels and progressively build on them as opportunities arise.

In addition to enhancing capacity on the railway side of the station, improvements in access to and facilities at stations are required. This will be increasingly important during the LDF period to 2028 where economic growth corridors / areas will be located close to transport hubs, town centres and their environs offer good locations for high density development proposals. Substantial enhancements are required to park and ride facilities and better bus, walking and cycle links to rail stations need to come forward which will help to protect, existing limited motorway network capacity or that provided by the Highways Agency’s (HA) hard shoulder running proposals for the M62 between junctions 18 and 20. The Northern Rail Re-Franchising process runs until February 2016, is expected to offer opportunities to invest in the railway infrastructure, to deliver the Council’s station improvement and service enhancements aspirations. Rochdale MBC will be lobbying those bodies involved in this process.

A key element of the strategy is the provision of public transport services that not only serve urban centres, but run across town or serve strategic development sites. Delivering these lie with TfGM and bus operators in partnership with the Council. The lack of secure parking provision around Rochdale Railway Station, TfGM have provided a 214 space park and ride facility off Lincoln Street / Hare Street, south of Rochdale station, to serve Metrolink and rail passengers.

The Station Gateway proposals also comprise the construction of a short section of road between A671 Oldham Road and Lincoln Street to access the car park and relieve traffic from the Oldham Road / Durham Street junction and adjacent weak bridge to the south. Drivers already experience delays and queuing there at peak times The Station Gateway also includes the opening up and refurbishment of the southern section of the railway station underpass and public realm improvements to provide a more appealing safer pedestrian environment for passengers accessing the station subway between the car park and the railway station and Metrolink stop. In 29 Page 33 addition, LSTF finance has secured the provision of a cycle hub in the grounds of the adjacent MacLure Road Health Centre.

Competition for parking space occurs at the other railway stations in the borough:

Littleborough through lack of park and ride facilities and rail heading (passengers starting and ending journeys in West Yorkshire but travelling to this station to take advantage of cheaper fares within the TfGM area if their journey is within a single ITA area); Smithy Bridge has poor quality park and ride facilities when demand exceeded supply particularly during Metrolink construction, Castleton - has a mainly on-street parking offer, but is located in an economic growth area with a potential opportunity to provide additional spaces as part of the development of adjacent sites or through the extension of the East Lancashire Railway to the station; Mills Hill - has one of the highest uses of an unstaffed station in Greater Manchester but has insufficient park and ride provision to meet existing demand. As a result on-street parking in the surrounding areas is prevalent with rail passengers competing for spaces with local residents.

These stations are all served by regular bus services that would benefit from better branding and promotion as offering interchange with local railway stations.

Rochdale Railway Station is a key gateway to the town and a focal asset to support regeneration of town centre and areas to the south including the Canal Basin. These require easier access to / from the station, but penetration to the town centre and connectivity with the surrounding area is poor. This will be addressed with the completion of Metrolink Phase 3B providing a tram link from to the town centre establishing a public transport interchange with the bus station, cycle hub and shopmobility centre. Signing and interpretation will be enhanced to guide rail passengers walking between the railway station and the town centre but also other key destinations in the town. It is also expected that Service 471 will return to its original route to allow direct bus service interchange with the tram and heavy rail network

Improvements are required to station environments across the Borough to reinforce a sense of passenger safety and security while using the network and accessing to and from it. Fares must also remain affordable if footfall is to continue to increase and remain competitive with the bus, Metrolink fares and car park charges if noticeable levels of modal shift are to be achieved. Disability access improvements are also programmed at Mills Hill Railway Station.

4.8 Maximising the Benefits of Metrolink

Work to convert the Rochdale, Oldham to Manchester Loop line from Heavy Rail to Metrolink (Phase 3A) opened to the public on 28th February 2013 with stops in the borough at Newhey, Milnrow, Kingsway Business Park and Newbold (Kingsway) and Rochdale Railway Station.

Metrolink Phase 3B to extend the line to the town centre is also under construction and is expected to be completed in Spring 2014. Both phases have been financed through the Greater Manchester Transport Fund (GMTF). Supporting works will be carried out to improve walking cycling and public transport links to stops and borough’s railway stations from funding secured from the Local Sustainable Transport Fund (LSTF).

The Council has longer term aspirations to extend high quality public transport links to Middleton from Bowker Vale, beyond Rochdale to Littleborough and Whitworth and provide a fixed line link from Heywood to Bury without affecting ELR’s leisure operations. These will enhance choice and the appeal of sustainable travel to / from those communities provide alternative travel options for people using busy commuter routes as well as improve connectivity across the borough and Greater Manchester. This strategy advocates the completion of feasibility studies to assess and explore the viability of these proposals. The Council would seek consideration of alternatives to Metrolink such as tram-train for any extensions to the Borough’s fixed line network those options strengthen the business case.

30 Page 34

Tram leaving Rochdale Station Stop (Courtesy of STORM)

4.9 Improving Bus Service Integration, Reliability and Frequency

There is strong support in Greater Manchester for greater control of the bus network to rest with the public sector. With increases in fuel duty and the reducing ability to fund subsidised services as budgets are tightened, there are real challenges for the industry to deliver more from services with less finance. The private market introduced in 1986 has not delivered levels of competition that were anticipated and bringing greater control through quality contracts and to a lesser degree quality partnerships may address this. Both public and private sectors needs to be more innovative in securing investment in the bus network if it is to meet passenger expectations and social need and strengthen its contribution to the local economy.

The main centres of the borough are served by 10 daytime minute frequency bus services or better, but evening and Sunday services are less frequent, and improvements to these are most needed. TfGM are carrying out an on-going major service review, in conjunction with operators, local authorities and other partners. Poor integration of bus services with other transport modes, particularly the rail network (eg. Rochdale) and to service key economic growth areas is lamentable and is only just starting to be addressed with the introduction of the Kingsway Link. Bus passenger facilities are also well below acceptable standards expected by passengers, and work will need to continue to improve bus network security and safety.

Anti-social behaviour and crime on public transport was more prevalent in Rochdale Borough than much of the rest of Greater Manchester. This has been addressed in recent years with success. The new Middleton Bus Station had a big impact in reducing crime and received almost universal approval from passengers and the local community. It is expected that the Rochdale PT Interchange will offer a contemporary design that meet both passenger and operator needs and generates similar community support and respect. Improvement in the design of vehicles, stops,

31 Page 35 interchanges and the use of CCTV (Closed Circuit Television) cameras have already contributed to reducing crime / anti-social behaviour.

In striving to improve the appeal and reliability of the bus network, key stops on quality corridors will continue to be enhanced. Identification of delay points on core routes and the implementation of measures to address them will continue, particularly on routes where there is no competing rail or Metrolink alternative eg A664 Middleton to Manchester corridor. The Council will also lobby for continued improvement to local bus services to access community amenities, particularly employment and economic growth areas. Cross town services trips through Rochdale are not catered for on the current bus network linking employment areas with local labour markets and there is some local demand for the bus network to serve retail centres such as Sandbrook Park which is almost an exclusively car orientated development. Local, evening and Sunday services require strengthening where commercial justification can be demonstrated, however at present falls in funding levels leading to rationalisation of marginal and subsidised services is shrinking the size of the borough’s bus network. This is creating gaps in services in the affluent north west of the Borough (Norden, Bamford) which have significantly higher car ownership and commuting. The Council will continue to review the local bus network, which carries around 80% of public transport journeys working with operators, lobby groups and TfGM.

Heywood Town Centre also experiences poor integration of bus services. Provision of a new central bus service interchange would provide a focal connecting point for both passengers and service and is a proposal that the Council will lobby for from GM Transport funding allocations.

Prioritising Bus Travel

4.10 Congestion and Sustainable Improvements to the Highway Network

There are 783 kilometres of road in the borough consisting of 24km of motorway, 83km of A road, 24km of B roads, 36km of other classified roads and 616km of unclassified roads.

A steady rise in traffic flows has driven an increasing reliance on the private car despite the Borough having lower than average car ownership rates compared with the rest of GM and national levels. The recent recession however has resulted in traffic flows on the motorway and on main routes in the borough starting to fall. The highest average daily flow per kilometre (2011) on the motorways passing through the borough was 93 100 vehicles a rise of 1.3% on 2010. Average 2011 flows on A and B roads were 14 200 and 10 500, falls of 3.4% and 1.9% respectively on 2010 equivalents. Delays still occur at bottlenecks in the Borough during peak 32 Page 36 times affecting journey reliability, most notably along the A58 from Littleborough to west of Heywood, routes to and from the motorway network and radial routes to / from town centres. Overall traffic volumes in Rochdale Borough fell by 1% on motorways in 2011 from 2010 and 2% on A and B roads over the same period. Since 1993 traffic in the Borough has risen by 7% compared with a fall of 5% in Greater Manchester and 2% nationally over the same period. These changes may be due to economic recession or the effectiveness of sustainable transport policies in the Borough in reducing traffic.

The rationalisation of bus services has occurred with reduced fuel duty rebate to operators and budget constraints on provision of the subsidised bus network may have some influence, as will the opening of Metrolink and further investment in the wider strategic sustainable transport network in the future. It seems that economic performance however has had a significant influence on changes in traffic volumes and travel behaviour.

Average journey times have increased marginally in Rochdale Borough since 2004/05, but there has been a decrease in the morning peak journey times. Average journey times in Rochdale are consistently less than for Greater Manchester as a whole. Despite schemes to address congestion at A58/A671 Townhead Junction, Sudden Junction Improvements and the A664/A671 Kingsway / Oldham Road Junction, there is still significant under investment in the Borough’s transport network to maintain the network’s operational efficiency and to support economic growth and access to local amenities. Further network improvements are planned but at some bottlenecks, lack of available land limits the scope for junction improvements. For example A58 could operate more efficiently if modern, intelligent signal control able to accommodate some currently restricted turning movements was installed. Sections of the Borough’s highway network where poor journey reliability contributes to peak time congestion problems are:  A58 between Rochdale and Littleborough;  Elizabethan Way, Bridge Street Kiln Lane Milnrow;  Hopwood Triangle including Green Lane / Middleton Rd / Manchester Rd / Coronation Avenue;  Manchester Old Road, Rhodes Middleton  Edenfield Road, Spotland Bridge Rochdale.

This transport strategy, although prioritising travel by sustainable modes, recognises the need for selected highway improvement solutions to address these areas to improve the operational efficiency of network. In enhancing journey reliability and mitigating effects of traffic in sensitive areas and in the view of business and current government policy supporting local economic growth, measures to deliver these are:  Journey reliability improvements on routes to and from the motorway network eg M62 J19 and Heywood Link Road;  Enhancing access to major employment and development growth areas eg Castleton, M62 corridor, Kingsway Business Park etc;  Enhance traffic management in sensitive areas using clear selection criteria, but including: o Heywood Town Centre, o Hopwood Triangle, Heywood, o Residential areas affected by large commercial vehicles, eg Sth Heywood, Birch, o On routes to and around schools.  Remove traffic in town centres to reduce conflict and rebalance priority between vulnerable road users (eg shoppers, visitors) and vehicles eg. Rochdale, Middleton and Heywood Town Centre.  Enhance transport links between major employment and economic growth areas, local services and residential areas particularly where there are pockets of worklessness eg. Langley and some local communities north of Rochdale Town Centre.

In addressing motorway congestion, the Highways Agency is working on a Managed Motorway scheme on the M62 between Junctions 18 and 20. This will bring the hard shoulder into active use during busy times of the day providing additional capacity, controlled by gantry signing. The 33 Page 37 Highways Agency have also carried out a route based strategy of the M62 between Manchester and Leeds (J18 to J29). The report published in March 2013 assessed the operational performance of this section of the M62 and current and future operational performance, highway safety, asset condition, route management and approaches to planned investment. Demand on the route will grow and some physical improvements will be required of a scale beyond current funding availability projections. Reducing levels of local traffic junction hopping is a particular issue and the HA will need to work with local stakeholders and better utilise other transport networks to accommodate future growth. Emerging and future technology will need to be introduced not just to manage the network but to better inform road users in making decision on where, how and when to travel. Rochdale MBC will work with the Highways Agency and other transport providers to address these issues as the solutions are likely to emerge through initiatives across the network and on the local network adjacent to junctions as well as the Strategic Road Network.

Improvements at M62 Junction 19 and links to the prosperous commercial areas south of Heywood would offer some relief to the M62 and M66, improve the efficiency of local traffic movements, reduce traffic at the congested Simister Island junction (M62 J18) and enable further land for economic investment and employment creation to be released to support local economic growth.

A627(M) to Rochdale 4.11 Tackling Freight Issues

Within Rochdale Borough, 3.2% of trips on A Roads, 1.5% on B Roads and 1.3% on minor roads are made by HGV’s. Despite these relatively low volumes there are areas of the borough where lorries cause disproportionate intrusion and nuisance to local communities. These correlate to areas where HGV flows are higher and vehicles larger, namely through town centres of Middleton and Heywood along with smaller settlements such as Birch on diversion routes used by lorries when the motorway network is congested. In Heywood, HGV’s travel from M66 J2 to the M62 and the Distribution Parks to the south of Heywood and through the town centre. Rochdale MBC is party to the Greater Manchester Freight Strategy, and part of the Greater Manchester Freight Quality Partnership seeks to deliver that strategy. The Council also works with businesses and developers in the Heywood area to minimise the impact of HGV’s on local communities.

34 Page 38

Lorry negotiating tight bend

4.12 Managing Travel Demand

Managing travel demand is an increasingly important issue when tackling congestion, reducing carbon levels and climate change emissions from traffic. It also contributes to improving health. Widening travel choice and encouraging more trips by sustainable modes are considered “smarter choices”, moving towards environmentally sustainable travel behaviour by:-  reducing the need to travel, through home working, home deliveries of shopping etc, and  exploiting alternatives to travel, such as video conferencing and methods of transferring information electronically. This is dependent on developing more broadband capacity and higher speeds in transferring information across the borough and accommodate a greater volume of electronic traffic

At present the Borough has a parking strategy to address issues in Rochdale Town Centre during its redevelopment. There is a need to develop a borough wide parking strategy addressing future demand for short and long stay parking and finding other uses for parking areas that are unpopular and unused.

A programme to manage travel behaviour change and deliver smarter choices has been developed through the GM Transport Fund and the LSTF bid. Measures include journey planning initiatives encouraging more walking, cycling and public transport journeys (eg. Multi ticketing) and solutions to reduce travel need and develop alternatives to address local congestion issues.

4.13 Network Management Duties

The Council has a legal duty under the Traffic Management Act 2004 “to facilitate the expeditious movement of traffic on its road network”. To deliver this, the Council seeks to minimise congestion and disruption on the road network addressing unacceptable delays and delivering journey reliability for the people of the borough, those with business in the area and those passing through it. It is expected that trips will be made in an efficient, timely and safe manner.

The Council carry outs its duties in partnership with TfGM consistent with LTP3 governance arrangements. The 2004 Act requires appointment of a “Traffic Manager” who oversees Network Management duties set out in the Council’s Network Management Plan (currently in draft). There is a desire to establish a Network Management Plan for all of Greater Manchester, incorporating Rochdale MBC’s plan. When approved, the plan will identify information, policies and a work 35 Page 39 programme of proposals and initiatives through which the Council will carry out its Network Management function.

4.14 Improving Local Transport Safety

On Rochdale Borough’s highway network between October 2010 and September 2011 there were 48 KSI (killed or seriously injured) casualties. This continues a long term downward trend in total annual number of casualties (down 56.2% since 1999) and is testament to the success of measures implemented to address local safety. A Vision 2020 target for further reduction has been set at 42 KSI casualties for the Borough, from 71 (2005-2009 base).

Central Government has challenged traffic authorities to reduce child KSI casualties. Incidence of these is higher in areas of deprivation however Rochdale Borough Child KSI casualties have fallen from 22 in 2000 to 6 in 2010 (down 72.7%). The Council will strive to continue this steady downward trend, but the low number of incidents will make further reductions challenging.

During the LTP2 period (2006-2011) the Council sought to reduce slight accidents as these were rising with policies previously concentrating on reducing KSI casualties. Rochdale MBC has steadily reduced slight casualties from 1209 in 2006 to 443 in 2011 (down 63.4%). The Council would also seek to continue this trend.

GM and Rochdale MBC exceeded national targets for reducing both KSI (killed and seriously injured) casualties and Child KSI casualties in the LTP2 period. In LTP3, GM is seeking to achieve a continued reduction in KSI casualties to 2020 to 551 KSI casualties from a 2005-2009 average annual base across the sub-region of 916.

Rochdale MBC’s recent casualty reduction performance reflects the structured approach to developing the Local Safety Schemes in the borough. On-going best practice review and following ISO endorsed Quality Management Systems has assisted, ensuring consistency in assessment and identifying remedial measures. This successful approach will continue and where possible be strengthened.

The Council continues to deliver 20mph zones / speed limits outside schools and has received DfT funding allocation to deliver 1950 cycle training places to children in the Borough.

Competition for minor scheme funding is strong in a financial climate of budget efficiencies. The Council is however seeking funding from TfGM to address accident hotspots for example in the centre of Littleborough to protect vulnerable road users and is embarking on a review of accident hotspots across the borough, analysing and re-prioritising key locations and routes.

Rochdale Canal Cycle Route 36 Page 40

4.15 Maintaining the Transport Network

Underpinning this Transport Strategy is the assumption that the integrity of the existing transport network and the best use of it will be maintained. To this end the Council has a Transport Asset Management Plan (TAMP) enabling a consistent approach in managing, valuing and financing the network in line with County Surveyors' Society Framework for Highway Asset Management. It is based on the principle through justification of investment in maintaining the highway, by demonstrating value for money in delivering the Council’s long term aims.

The TAMP assesses whether current levels of expenditure have a positive or negative effect on the maintenance backlog in the Borough. Future development of the plan will define strategic routes and identify the optimum allocation of resource investment in the Council's transport infrastructure. In the short term there will be emphasis on modernising and improving efficiency of the street lighting asset.

The TAMP is an evolving document, subject to regular review, to ensure it adapts to changing practice and delivers a responsive service to residents and businesses in the Borough.

Funding for maintenance improvements has been secured to address potholes on the network from Central government. The Council has also committed a further £10 million over the next few years to maintain the structural integrity of the Borough’s road network in addition to annual revenue / maintenance allocations secured through the GMLTP3.

Highway Works in Middleton

37 Page 41 5. Linking Transport Proposals to the Strategy

In delivering the vision and objectives set out the front of this strategy the council aspires to achieve the following : . A strategic bus and Trans-Pennine rail links to the regional centre (Manchester), neighbouring centres and regions will be transformed with more capacity, comfort and improved quality that will be affordable and integrated, with direct access to a wider range of destinations; . Rochdale Town Centre will have new interchange facilities; . Metrolink already serves “Kingsway Business Park” and will be extended to Rochdale Town Centre; . Rail stations at Castleton, Rochdale, Mills Hill, Smithy Bridge and Littleborough will be improved with greater numbers of passengers, park and ride, and safer and comfortable waiting facilities; . Town centres will give greater priority to pedestrians and shoppers, be safer and more easily accessible by a choice of transport modes, . Bus reliability, comfort and journey times along Quality Bus Corridors will improve, with evening and Sunday services being maintained or more frequent, . modern efficient ticketing will be introduced that can be used on rail tram and bus, and a range of other uses . Heywood will experience fewer problems, from heavy goods vehicles travelling through its streets; . Public transport links will improve access to key employment areas (e.g. Kingsway, South Heywood, Stakehill) from key settlements and there will be more cross town / regional centre services; . A greater percentage of residents and visitors will be using public transport or other sustainable forms of travel in the Borough; . New 21st century employment sites and new homes will be in sustainable locations and accessible by a choice of transport modes; . Congestion on primary transport corridors will reduce with trip reliability and air quality improved; . The East Lancs Railway will be extended to Castleton to enable access to the Calder Valley (Leeds to Manchester) line. . There will be more miles of cycleway and a coherent cycle network linking main centres with more routes to local communities and amenities, . Pedestrian links between communities and local services will be enhanced and safer, . Travel for people with impaired mobility or disabilities will have seamless access across the transport network and to local services / amenities. . Roads and footpaths will be well maintained, safer with fewer road casualties and fatalities, . School travel will be safer with the number of pupils travelling by car, reduced. . Commuters will have a viable alternative to the car for many journeys and transport authorities will work with businesses to provide this while maintaining their market competitiveness, . High specification broadband network and intelligent communication technology will enhance the efficient operation of the transport network and transport information, reducing the need to travel.

Table 5.1 below details the proposals included in the action plan, linking them to the key issues in Chapter 4 and the Vision objectives in Chapter 5. It indicates how each scheme links to the transport aims and aspirations of the Council and contributes towards achieving the vision.

38 Page 42 Table 5.1 – Programme of Transport Strategy Projects and links to Aims and Objectives Proposals Vision Scheme Description Key Issue (Chapter 4) Transport Vision Objective Walking and Cycling Walking & Cycling access to Metrolink Stop / Rail Stations Maximising the benefits of Metrolink. More-Safer Cycling / Walk in right direction Provide walking & cycle links to Stations Metrolink stops Improve Pedestrian & Cycle Links to Town Centres Encouraging Walking & Cycling Connecting People & Places Walking / cycling connectivity impvts to town centres Middleton, Manchester Rd / Long St Pedesrianisation Encouraging Walking & Cycling Walk in the Right Direction Extension of Pedestrianisation in Middleton Town Centre. Rochdale Town Hall Square Pedestrianisation Encouraging Walking & Cycling Connecting People & Places Remove parking. Extend pedestrianisation round Town Hall Boroughwide Replace Subways with Surface Crossings Encouraging Walking & Cycling Connecting People & Places Remove subways. Provide safe walking to town centre. Home and School Zone Programme Improving Local Transport Safety More-Safer Cycling / Walk in right direction TM to provide safe local pedestrian / cycle access Rochdale PT Interchange Cycle Parking Hub Encouraging Walking & Cycling More & Safer Cycling Cycle Parking Hub serving bus station / Metrolink Stop. Rochdale Station Cycle Parking Hub (Nye Bevin House) Encouraging Walking & Cycling More & Safer Cycling Cycle Parking Hub for Health Centre, Station & Metrolink. Heywood Town Centre Pedestrianisation & Traffic Man. Encouraging Walking & Cycling Connecting People & Places Pedestrianise Market St - provide access from south/west. Measures to encourage Travel Behaviour Change Managing Travel Demand Smarter Travel - Tackling Congestion Measures to reduce travel demand eg home working. "Connect 3" Proposals Middleton Town Centre to Mills Hill Station Cycle Route Encouraging Walking & Cycling More & Safer Cycling Segregated cycle route - Oldham Rd (Middleton to Oldham). Sustainable access to Key Employment Areas Links to Jobs, Education & Training Better Buses / More - Safer Cycling. Pedestrian / Cycle access impvts to Stakehill / Heywood. Littleborough / Smithy Bridge Station Ped / Cycle Links Encouraging Walking & Cycling More - Safer Cycling. Improved local pedestrian / cycle links to stations. Roch 43 Page Valley Way Cycle Trail Encouraging Walking & Cycling More-Safer Cycling / Walk in right direction Walking / cycle / bridleway spine route along Roch Valley. Rochdale Canal Cycleway Encouraging Walking & Cycling More-Safer Cycling / Walk in right direction Complete Rochdale Canal cycle route. Link to Connect 2. Middleton Town Centre to Alkrington Woods Cycle Link Encouraging Walking & Cycling More-Safer Cycling / Walk in right direction Safe cycle link - Middleton TC - Alkrington Woods. Heywood to Bury Town Centre Cycle Link Encouraging Walking & Cycling More-Safer Cycling / Walk in right direction Safe cycle route between Heywood & Rochdale TC's Improved Ped / Cycle Links to Rossendale Encouraging Walking & Cycling More-Safer Cycling / Walk in right direction Safe cycle route - Rochdale Cycle Network & Whitworth Develop Green Route Network Encouraging Walking & Cycling More-Safer Cycling / Walk in right direction Cycle links to local amenities from strategic cycle network. Future Home / School Zones Improving Local Transport Safety More-Safer Cycling / Walk in right direction TM measures providing safe local ped / cycle access Access & Connectivity Improvements to Health facilities Improve town / local centre access Better Buses / Walk in the Right Direction. Deliver local cycle links to local health facilities. Access & Connectivity Improvements to Tourist facilities Improve town / local centre access Better Buses / Walk in the Right Direction. Cycle links to tourist attractions eg. Hollingworth Lake. Public Transport - Bus Rochdale PT Interchange Improving Access to Transport Hubs Better Buses Town Centre PT interchange with Metrolink terminus. Rochdale Town Centre Metroshuttle Bus service reliability / frequency Imps Better Buses / Smarter Travel Rochdale Town Centre shuttle bus service. Options. Heywood Town Centre Bus Improvements Improve Access to Transport Hubs Better Buses / Connecting People to Places Provide bus interchange to focus & rationalise services. QBC Bus Priority Schemes (inc A58, A640) Bus service reliability / frequency Imps Better Buses Congestion relief & bus journey reliability imps. Cross Town Bus Service Improvements Connect to jobs, education & training Better Buses Cross town bus linking communities to local amenities. Bus Link Improvements to Economic Growth Areas Connect to jobs, education & training Better Buses Improve bus services to local employment areas Cross City Bus Corridor (Manchester to Middleton) Access to Regional Centre Beter Buses Bus Priority Oxford Road, Manchester to Middleton. Community Transport / DRT Links to local amenities. Town / Local centre access Imps Better Buses / Connecting People to Places Enhance CT / DRT to meet gaps in subsidised network. Yellow School Buses Town / Local centre access Imps Better Buses / Connecting People to Places Expand yellow bus service to more Borough schools.

39

Table 5.1: Programme of Transport Strategy Projects and links to Aims and Objectives (continued).

Proposals Vision Scheme Description Key Issue (Chapter 4) Transport Vision Objective Rail Caldervale Line Line speed & capacity Improvements Getting more from Heavy Rail Passenger Services Enhanced Strategic Rail Travel Enhance rail infrastructure / signalling / service reliability & quality Imps Calder Valley Railway Station Improvements Getting more from Heavy Rail Passenger Services Enhanced Strategic Rail Travel Improve rail stations. Enhance waiting experience & meet future demand. Northern Hub Ordsall Curve (Manchester / Salford) Getting more from Heavy Rail Passenger Services Connecting People & Places Cross City Centre Rail link between Victoria & Piccadilly stations Rochdale Station - Capacity Improvements Taking Advantage of Strategic Location Enhanced Strategic Rail Travel Rail capacity improvements including new platform at Rochdale Station. Todmorden Curve Re-instatement ( Burnley) Getting more from Heavy Rail Passenger Services Enhanced Strategic Rail Travel Re-instate direct rail services from Blackburn & Burnley to Manchester. Calder Valley Line Electrification Improving access to Regional Centres Enhanced Strategic Rail Travel Electrification of Calder Valley Line in (CP6) Calder Valley Line HLOS Rolling Stock Cascade Getting more from Heavy Rail Passenger Services Enhanced Strategic Rail Travel Modern Calder Valley Line rolling stock - improve capacity / journey times Rochdale Station Gateway Package - Oldham Road to Lincoln Street Link Road Improve local / town centre & transport hub access Connecting People & Places New route to access Park & Ride site. Relieve adjacent junction. - Public Realm Improvements (Car Park to Subway) Improve local / town centre & transport hub access Walk in th Right Direction Improve ped safety & environs accessing rail station & Metrolink stop. - Rochdale Railway Station Subway Re-opening Improve local / town centre & transport hub access Walk in the Right Direction. Improve southern ped / cycle access to Railway Station & Metrolink stop. Rochdale Station Approach Improve local / town centre & transport hub access Connecting People & Places Re-convigure existing devt. Use RMBC land for short stay parking. Mills Hill Railway Station Enhanced Park & Ride Getting more from Heavy Rail Passenger Services Enhanced Strategic Rail Travel Increase Park & Ride. Reduce on-street congestion. Easier rail access. Mills Hill Railway Station Improved Disability Access Improve local / town centre & transport hub access Connecting People & Places Construct disability / step-free access to station platforms Smithy Bridge Railway Station enhanced Park & Ride Getting more from Heavy Rail Passenger Services Enhanced Strategic Rail Travel Consolidate / Increase P & R to meet existing / future demand (if required). Page 44 Page Littleborough Railway Station enhanced Park & Ride Getting more from Heavy Rail Passenger Services Enhanced Strategic Rail Travel Increase Park & Ride provision to meet existing and future demand. Rochdale Railway Station Passenger Facility Improvements Improve local / town centre & transport hub access Enhanced Strategic Rail Travel Improve Station & Ticket Office Envmnt for Passengers / Rail staff. East Lancs Railway New Broadfield Sation, Heywood Connect to jobs, education & training opportunities Connecting People & Places New Broadfield Station.serving Distribution parks south of Heywood. Enhanced Heywood ELR Station facilities Improve local / town centre & transport hub access Connecting People & Places Enhanced Station building with better facilities & range of income streams. ELR Extension to Castleton Station Improve local / town centre & transport hub access Connecting People & Places Small scale rail network capacity increases and turnback facilities. Castleton Railway Station enhanced Park & Ride Getting more from Heavy Rail Passenger Services Enhanced Strategic Rail Travel Increase Park & Ride. Reduce on-street congestion & rail service access. Heywood to Bury fixed line Shuttle (Rail / Tram Train) (Study) Improve local / town centre & transport hub access Connecting People & Places Explore feasibility of new fixed line Heywood- Bury - not affecting ELR. Enhanced Heywood to Manchester City Centre PT Services Improving access to Regional Centres Enhanced Strategic Rail Travel Explore options & implement improvements in PT links to regional centre Metrolink Metrolink - Phase 3B (Rochdale Rail Station-Town Centre) Maximising the benefits of Metrolink Connecting People & Places Extend Metrolink from Rochdale Railway Station to Town Centre. Metrolink Extension of Bury Line to Middleton (Study) Maximising the benefits of Metrolink Connecting People & Places Feasibility study into extending Metrolink from Bowker Vale to Middleton. Metrolink Extension (Rochdale to Whitworth) (Study) Maximising the benefits of Metrolink Connecting People & Places Feasibility study into extending Metrolink to Whitworth. Enhanced PT Services (Rochdale to Littleborough) (Study) Managing Travel Demand Smarter Travel - Tackle Congestion. Feasibility study into extending Metrolink to Littleborough. Highway Improvements A58 Congestion Reduction / Capacity Improvements Littleborough to Hamer Congestion & Sustainable Highway Network Impvts. Smarter Travel - Tackle Congestion Measures to relieve congestion & pinchpoint delay. Heywood Improvements Congestion & Sustainable Highway Network Impvts. Smarter Travel - Tackle Congestion Measures to relieve congestion & pinchpoint delay. Heap Bridge Improvements Congestion & Sustainable Highway Network Impvts. Smarter Travel - Tackle Congestion Measures to relieve congestion & pinchpoint delay. M62 J21 to Hollingworth Lake Route Improvements Congestion & Sustainable Highway Network Impvts. Smarter Travel - Tackle Congestion Measure to relieve delay in Milnrow for access to / from M62 J21. Heywood & Bury Congestion Relief Proposals Congestion & Sustainable Highway Network Impvts. Tackle Congestion / Better Buses Measures in Heywood to relieve congestion & improve bus priority.

40

Table 5.1 : Programme of Transport Strategy Projects and links to Aims and Objectives (continued)

Proposals Vision Scheme Description Key Issue (Chapter 4) Transport Vision Objective Highway Improvements (continued) Rochdale Townhead Junction Impvt (Phase 3) Congestion / Sustainable Highway Imps Smarter Travel - Tackling Congestion Capacity Imps enabling A58 arms to operate together Rochdale TC (Wood Street - Drake Street) TM Measures Congestion / Sustainable Highway Imps Connecting People & Places Improve capacity / reduce delays on route round Town Centre Rochdale Town Centre Access/Movement Strategy - John Street to Penn Street Improvements Local / Town Centre / Transport Hub Imps Connecting People & Places Improve access to Town Centre East Devt Proposal - Rochdale Pioneers Route - Ped / Cycle Links Imps Local / Town Centre / Transport Hub Imps More-Safer Cycling / Walk in Right Direction Sign Pioneers Route for Peds / Cyclists to Rochdale TC - Pedestrian / Cycle Links to / from Town Centre Encourage Cycle / Walking Links More-Safer Cycling / Walk in Right Direction Provide strategic cycle links to Rochdale TC - Rochdale TH Square - Remove Rdbt. Create event space Encourage Cycle / Walking Links Connecting People & Places Remove junction. Enhance town centre public space & vitality - Rochdale Esplanade - Newgate Loop Road. Improve Local / Town Centre Access Connecting People & Places Provide in / out TC servicing access. Not a through route - Rochdale Town Centre Car Parking Strategy Managing Travel Demand Smarter Travel - Tackling Congestion Parking Imps to meet future town centre demand. Rochdale, Spotland Bridge Congestion Relief Measures Congestion / Sustainable Highway Imps Smarter Travel - Tackling Congestion Address delay by maximising use of existing carraigeway Rochdale College Rd / Bury Rd / Mellor St Junction Impvt Congestion / Sustainable Highway Imps Smarter Travel - Tackling Congestion Junction Imp to reduce delay in commercial area. Page 45 Page M62 J18-20 Managed Motorway - Hard Shoulder Running Congestion / Sustainable Highway Imps Connecting People & Places Utilise hard shoulder to increase capacity to 4 lanes South Heywood M62 J19 Link Road to Hareshill Rd Links to Job, Education & Training Opps Effective & Efficient Freight Travel New section of road frm M62 J19 to Hareshill Rd. Heywood, Hareshill Road Improvements Links to Job, Education & Training Opps Effective & Efficient Freight Travel TM & widen existing route to accommodate HGV traffic M66 J2 to Heywood SPZ Access Improvements Links to Job, Education & Training Opps Effective & Efficient Freight Travel Improve access between Sth Heywood & M66 for HGVs M66 J3 Congestion Relief & Capacity Improvements Links to Job, Education & Training Opps Effective & Efficient Freight Travel Reduce congestion/delay for lorries accessing Sth Heywood M62 Kingsway Business Park Signing Provision Links to Job, Education & Training Opps Effective & Efficient Freight Travel HA signing to strategic employment site from M62 Kingsway Business Park to Rochdale TC Connectivity Imps. Local / Town Centre / Transport Hub Imps Connecting People & Places Congestion relief Imps btwn Rochdale TC & Kingsway Bus. Pk. Royle Works - Edinburgh Way Junction Improvement Congestion / Sustainable Highway Imps Connecting People & Places Improve junction access to key development area. Other Proposals Rochdale Town Centre Parking Strategy Managing Travel Demand Connecting People & Places Revise / manage parking to meet future TC demand Rochdale Town Centre - River Roch Re-opening Local / Town Centre / Transport Hub Imps Connecting People & Places Expose River Rooch in TC. Public Realm Imps Heywood Weight Restriction (Pilsworth Road) Tackling Freight Issues Effective & Efficient Freight Travel Wt Restriction to promote access to Sth Heywood from M66 Bridges & Structure Asset Management Plan Maintaining the Transport Network Effective & Efficient Freight Travel Assess need & strengthen borough's structural assets. Highways Asset Management Plan Maintaining the Transport Network Connecting People & Places Plan for Highway Network maintenance & strengthening. Street Lighting Asset Management Plan Maintaining the Transport Network More-Safer Cycling / Walk in Right Direction Plan / Programme to maintain / upgrade street lighting asset. Heywood Freight Quality Partnership Tackling Freight Issues Effective & Efficient Freight Travel Partnership work to address HGV impact on residents. Develop Rochdale Borough Parking Strategy Managing Travel Demand Connecting People & Places Develop & implement a parking regimeto meet future needs.

41

Impact of the Action Plan on Travel in the Borough

The impact of these proposals when delivered by 2026 will be to reduce peak time congestion through offering sustainable alternatives to car travel, which are competitive and will address congestion at pinch points on the network. Rail and Metrolink services will broaden travel choice for many journeys and offer improved passenger travel experience. They will also be able to carry more passengers to / from more destinations, local amenities and easier access more job opportunities and with greater comfort and convenience. Tram and rail services will also offer more reliable and competitive journey times and direct rail access to Manchester Airport (and destinations in the Midlands and the South) as well as employment growth areas south of Manchester City Centre.

Safety and access improvements will offer more opportunities for active forms of travel bringing wider health benefits and positively contribute to tackling poor air quality, climate change and CO2 levels. Changes in travel behaviour will make sustainable travel journeys more acceptable. Schools, health authorities, businesses and developers will work more closely with transport bodies to discourage unnecessary motorised journeys. Only in localised areas will levels of private transport journeys be maintained where there are no feasible or competitive sustainable alternatives.

The public transport network in Rochdale will focus on two interchanges. In the town centre, the bus interchange will link with the terminus tram stop, cycle hub, shopmobility centre and taxi ranks. Rochdale railway station has park and ride provision already interchanges with a tram stop and will interchange with a frequent bus service, cycle hub and taxi ranks in an area of enhanced public realm. There will also be a short stay parking / drop off area. Smart ticketing will be introduced initially on Metrolink but will eventually be inter-operable between rail, bus and tram and real time information will be available at key transport interchanges.

The Northern Hub proposals will be delivered in full and rail travel in / through the borough will benefit from increased services to a wider range of destinations. Increase in capacity and line speeds, an improved Rochdale station and new rail connections through Manchester and to East Lancashire (via Todmorden Curve) will add to the destinations directly accessible from the borough. The network will accommodate more services. More carriages and modern rolling stock will meet peak time and business travel demands and passengers will be required to stand for their journeys less often. The Calder Valley Line to be electrified along its length in the next 10 years (some sections earlier), speeding up journey times (eg. 50 minutes between Manchester and Bradford Interchange is an achievable aspiration).

Increased park and ride capacity will be provided at the Borough’s railway stations and Metrolink stops to meet existing / future demand through specific schemes or as part of larger regeneration proposals e.g. Castleton. There will be platform interchange between East Lancs Railway and the Calder Valley Line.

There will be enhancements to bus services accessing employment areas, hospitals, health and leisure services, schools, colleges, shops, community services, and railway and Metrolink stations. There will be an increase in evening and Sunday bus service frequency, to and from major centres and more orbital services across Greater Manchester. Bus Priority will be progressively enhanced across the network.

A strategic walking and cycle network will link the borough’s townships to each other and to neighbouring centres as well as the wider national walking and cycle network building on the completed Connect 2 network. Local access to employment, training and education opportunities along with other local health and community facilities will allow ease of access to people with impaired mobility as well as pedestrians and cyclists. There will be improvements to school travel safety and security by reducing travel by car, introduction of more 20mph zones around schools and expansion of Yellow Bus schemes beyond current provision. Local Safety will continue to improve, with casualty numbers continuing to fall. Travel demand will reduce as employers recognise the productivity benefits and resource employees to work remotely more often and base performance on delivery of projects and results, not levels of attendance. More business will be conducted away from the work place with greater access to high speed broadband and local business hubs, reducing the need to commute and therefore peak time congestion.

Measures to address bottlenecks, maintain operation efficiency, structural integrity and safety of the highway network will continue. Increasingly intelligent traffic control and signalling systems will assist in relieving congestion to enhancing journey reliability and reducing traffic emissions. A network of electric 42 Page 46 charging points will be established across the Borough and vehicles will become less polluting and more fuel efficient reducing their environmental impact. Some selective highway infrastructure improvements will be implemented to support local economic growth and regeneration and address specific congestion impacts of new / expanding development. Developers will, when they are the main beneficiaries of infrastructure proposals be expected to fully fund or contribute proportionately to implementation costs and any supportive measures to protect adjacent sensitive and residential areas from unwanted traffic.

Feasibility studies will have been carried out to bring forward the next generation of projects beyond the lifetime of this strategy. Some proposals with suitable business cases will come forward sooner as new funding opportunities are introduced. The Council will continue to lobby funding partners to include the Borough’s Transport priorities in their funding priorities through eg. GM Transport Fund, GM City Deal “Earnback” and other Central Government funding sources. Although not direct beneficiaries, the Council supports central government’s proposed High Speed 2 rail proposals to Manchester as it will have “knock on” benefits to local businesses and travel choice for local people. The proposals however will not be delivered within the time period covered by this strategy.

Kingsway Business Park Construction – Preliminary Earthworks.

43 Page 47

6. Resourcing the Strategy

This strategy will require considerable resources given the cumulative potential cost of the proposals, particularly in the provision of public transport infrastructure. The action plan is a challenge to deliver. The refresh comes a few years on from the publication of the original strategy as some of the priority schemes have committed funding, are being or have been constructed. Much of the action plan will be delivered through the implementation of minor projects, but securing major scheme investment is key to delivering the real economic growth central government is seeking and noticeable and recognisable improvements in travel for the borough’s travelling public. A range of potential funding sources exist and continue to be introduced mainly to deliver schemes quickly. Some of these funding sources are as follows.

GM Local Transport Plan 3 (LTP 3)

This key source of capital transport investment provided a 2008/09 allocation for Rochdale of £3.9 million split between £2.1 million for structural maintenance and £1.8 million for Integrated Transport schemes.

LTP block allocations awarded to Rochdale MBC were £4.257 million for 2009/10 (£1.906 million for Integrated Transport and £2.351 million for maintenance) and £4.725 million (£2.021 million for Integrated Transport and £ 2.704 million for Maintenance) in 2010/11. GM LTP2 also funded the GM Retaining Walls Maintenance and GM Urban Traffic Control (UTC) schemes which were both allocated Major Scheme Funding and included works in the Borough.

The current Greater Manchester LTP3 covers the period 2011/12 to 2015/16 and unlike previous submissions is led by TfGM. While the Core Strategy and GM transport priorities within it are supported by the Council and Central Government, this is not reflected in the allocations to deliver local council priorities. The Council will increasingly need to seek support through other funding sources to deliver its long term infrastructure priorities after 2014 Rochdale PT Interchange and Metrolink to Rochdale Town Centre are complete. Major transport infrastructure investment in the borough in the short term will come from Network Rail through the Northern Hub proposals for capacity improvements at Rochdale Station and the improved rail services that are aspirations.

Since 2011/12 Rochdale MBC along with the other GM authorities have not received any Integrated Transport Block allocation and this is expected to continue until at least 2014/2015. There is therefore little resource to carry out minor transport improvements or township transport priorities from this funding source. The Council has continued to receive maintenance allocations through LTP3.

Greater Manchester Transport Fund

The Greater Manchester Transport Fund (GMTF) was initiated following the inability to obtain local business and public support for the Transport Investment Fund (TIF) bid in December 2008. It comprises a programme of priority major transport schemes (i.e. those costing £5 million or more) that contribute to delivering the objectives of the Greater Manchester Strategy. The current programme runs to 2019 and is funded from :  DfT grants;  a “top slice” from the Greater Manchester LTP Integrated Transport Block funding over 9 years from 2010-2011, hence Local Authorities not being allocated this funding currently; and  a combination of borrowings made by GM Combined Authority and third party / local contributions.

The GM Combined Authority (GMCA) will repay the borrowings in full by 2045 from Metrolink net revenues, the application of ring-fenced revenue contributions. The GMTF proposals with the borough are as follows:  Metrolink Phase 3A (including Manchester to Rochdale via Oldham) (completed Feb 2013);  Metrolink Phase 3B (Rochdale Railway Station to Town Centre) (under construction);  Rochdale Railway Station Metrolink and Rail Park and Ride facility (completed Feb 2013);  Cross City Bus Corridors Package (A664 Middleton to Manchester) (2014 – 2015),

44 Page 48  South Heywood M62 J19 Relief Road.

Local Sustainable Transport Fund (LSTF)

The Local Sustainable Transport Fund (LSTF) is a Department for Transport funding initiative targeting projects which stimulate economic growth whilst reducing carbon emissions. A Greater Manchester bid was prepared which focussed on three core themes:- active travel, smarter travel information / promotion, and network efficiency. The LSTF is an opportunity to accelerate the pace of the ambitions outlined in LTP3.

A 'Key Component' and a 'Large Project' bid were submitted to the DfT by TfGM. The 'Key Component' bid was based around a programme of measures to support commuter cycling and in July 2011 received an allocation for GM of £4.938 million for both capital and revenue initiatives to be delivered by 2015.

The 'Large Project' bid has focussed on four components:  Sustainable access to key destinations and transport hubs;  Supporting sustainable choices;  Smarter Travel; and  Enabling community transport.

This bid secured a GM settlement of £32.4 million. The Rochdale MBC bid elements were measures to improve access for pedestrians and cyclists to railway stations and Metrolink stops in the borough. This attracted an allocation of just over £1 million. TfGM have financed a Demand Responsive Public Transport Service between Rochdale Bus Station and Kingsway Business Park now that the development site is generating a cohort of passengers as more businesses move on to the site and begin operating. This “Kingsway Link” service began in February 2013. The LSTF programme has the support of public, private, and community sectors in Greater Manchester. A suite of initiatives encouraging and training cycle commuting for those coming into employment / training and who wish to cycle commute is being delivered by voluntary and third sector organisations resourced from LSTF.

Priority Investment Fund (PIF)

To deliver its economic priorities as set out in the Borough Masterplan and Sustainable Communities Strategy, the Council has established a Priority Investment Fund (PIF). Similar to the GM Transport Fund this brings together a number of funding sources to deliver its infrastructure priorities. The transport infrastructure proposals (Town Centre Relief Road, Town Centre Access and Movement Strategy, Rochdale Station Gateway etc) are included in this strategy. Others that meet the Borough’s priorities will come forward as they gain commitment and means of delivery are identified.

Regeneration Funding

The use of regeneration funding has been utilised successfully in Rochdale Borough to assemble and develop Kingsway Business Park through finance from the North West Regional Development Agency (NWDA) before its demise, and the acquisition of the Rochdale Public Transport Interchange site using Single Regeneration Budget (SRB).

Securing funding from these sources for transport infrastructure is reliant on the improvements proposed generating additional economic, housing or other regeneration benefits to enhance overall project impact. Justifying schemes on purely transport and cost / benefit is no longer sufficient and projects are required to deliver wider outcomes. Central government are prioritising schemes that directly deliver economic growth and although reducing routine transport funding, are investing in major projects that it perceives will deliver this. Potential funding sources include;

Regional Growth Fund – Supporting short term business growth that delivers new jobs in the short term eg Holroyds in Milnrow have secured this but elsewhere this has been allocated to schemes that provide direct access to new employment opportunities.

European Regional Development Fund (ERDF). - The 2007-13 programme has limited resources particularly capital allocation, therefore opportunities to use access this will be limited.

45 Page 49 Homes and Communities Agency (HCA) – is an organisation, with the scale of resources and regeneration commitment that will contribute to transport proposals that are underpinned by regeneration objectives.

Kingsway Business Park

GM City Deal “Earnback”

The City Deal for Greater Manchester was announced by central government on Tuesday 20th March 2012 and has the potential to empower the sub-region to maximise its economic growth. The deal makes a range of bespoke agreements between the government and Greater Manchester Combined Authority (GMCA) based on the needs and opportunities of the region’s economy. These are geared towards accelerating growth, boosting skills, encouraging local decision-making and increased self- sufficiency.

One of these agreements was the setting up of an “Earnback model” where the government has agreed in principle that up to £1.2 billion can be invested up front in infrastructure improvements by the Greater Manchester Combined Authority. This will be ‘paid back’ to the combined authority from the increase in government tax reciepts from real economic growth delivered in the sub-region. It is the first tax increment finance-style scheme in England outside London and the government formally committed to it in the June 2013 Spending Review announcement. ‘Earned back’ funds will be reinvested in further infrastructure improvements to allow Greater Manchester to reach its economic potential starting with the completion of the GM Transport Fund programme. It will also enable long-standing schemes such as the South East Manchester Multi Modal Strategy (SEMMMS) and the extension of Metrolink to Trafford Park (combined cost estimate of over £600 million) to be delivered.

This approach is a major shift towards local decision-making with the DfT endorsing an Investment Framework that aligns funding and assets to promote economic growth. This approach is already used in the GM Transport Fund bringing together different funding streams into one pot to allow greater investment flexibility.

A key reason for refreshing this strategy is to offer an up to date document with which the Council can lobby for funding its infrastructure investment priorities from the “Earnback model”.

46 Page 50 Private and Other Third Party Funding

With public finances continuing to be squeezed and capital funding pots becoming increasingly focussed and fragmented to meet individual government priorities (economic growth, addressing congestion, sustainable travel) private investment and other third party funding will become increasingly important in delivering new transport infrastructure, particularly through the planning system. There will be a steady flow of small scale capital projects required to ensure that development proposals are delivered and their impacts mitigated to maintain the operational efficiency of the transport network. To date many of these schemes have been financed through Section 106 agreements and planning obligations that permit the Council to seek additional contributions for off-site transport works to service development. For example, the Tesco Store expansion at Sudden contributing to improving Rochdale Town Centre’s public realm to mitigate any potential impact on the town centre economy. The Council seeks to ensure the level of contribution required is proportionate and directly related to proposals but will be robust in the pursuit of opportunities to secure such contributions where they are justified.

In the future, as Local Plans are developed, the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) may form a more systematic approach to securing developer contributions. The Council will be developing its CIL arrangements and considering the most appropriate methodology for calculating, collecting and investing it back into the infrastructure.

With infrastructure improvement proposals focussing on delivering economic growth, scheme proposals are comprised of a wider variety of facets, not just transport improvements. This is opening up the opportunity to be more innovative and to finance schemes imaginatively to meet their delivery outcomes. The Council is mixing and matching scheme funding, with for example the Environment Agency and Heritage Lottery Funding to open up the River Roch in Rochdale Town Centre. This will be increasingly common in the future as individual schemes will be required to meet a range of objectives.

Rochdale Bus Station Under Construction (Courtesy of STORM)

47 Page 51 7. Implementing the Strategy

This transport strategy is a working document adopted, referenced and used by range of stakeholders and partners, who will be responsible for its implementation. Through consultation, the strategy has ‘buy in’ from a range of strategic partners and agencies and with the funding environment fluidly changing as central government focuses on delivering fragmented priorities, the action plan is deliberately wide ranging and ambitious to take advantage of a range of investment sources. Some of the Agencies who will support the Council in delivering this strategy are : o Rochdale Local Strategic Partnership, o Transport for Greater Manchester o Rochdale Borough Transport Group, o Highways Agency o Heywood, Middleton, Pennine, Rochdale Townships, o Rochdale Development Agency, o Local Chambers of Trade and Commerce, o NHS Rochdale, Heywood, Middleton PCT, o Greater Manchester Police, o Greater Manchester Fire Service, o Network Rail o Bus and Train Operating Companies o East Lancs Railway Trust o Sustrans o Environment Agency o English Heritage o Canal and River Trust, o Neighbouring Local Authorities, o Support the Oldham, Rochdale, Manchester Railway Line Group (STORM), o Private Sector Investors in the Borough

The process of engagement does not necessarily incorporate all views presented but where the Council’s considers they add value to the strategy, they have been included. There are policy areas where there views conflict and judgements have been made in how to recognise or accommodate these.

Transport has wide-ranging impacts and different users have varied, conflicting and vociferous views on priorities according to their experience and interests on how the network can be improved. Monitoring and refreshment of this strategy has taken place through a variety of agencies reflecting the range of stakeholder interests.

Implementation of the action plan is a tightly focussed remit for the Council but there are opportunities for transport users to engage with deliverers of transport infrastructure and services through the Rochdale Borough Transport Group which meets quarterly. Transport Strategy Action Plan delivery is through a number of agencies including: o Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council o Greater Manchester Combined Authority – Local Transport Board, o Transport for Greater Manchester, o GM Transport Strategy Group, o Regeneration Initiatives eg through Rochdale Development Agency, o Strategic Partners eg Network Rail, Northern Way, Highways Agency, GM LEP (Local Enterprise Partnership), Sustrans o Private and Voluntary Sector Bodies, including Bus Operators eg First Bus and Rossendale Bus and Train Operating Companies (Northern Rail), Private Developers, East Lancs Railway Trust, Community Transport Operators, o Other Third Party Stakeholders including Environment Agency, Canal & River Trust, Local Health Authorities etc. o Lobby Groups eg STORM, GM Transport Campaign, Travelwatch North West.

48 Page 52 8. Key Projects Action Plan

Table 8.1 lists the key projects that form Rochdale Borough’s Transport Strategy identified in Chapter 5. It details an estimated timescale for delivering each scheme with the Short Term (2013-2016), Medium Term (2016-2021) and Long Term (2021-2026) horizons. The table below also indicates potential lead agencies and possible funding sources. Schemes delivered, under construction or with a financial commitment are identified and demonstrate the progress made on delivery since this transport strategy was initially published in June 2010. These proposals in the action plan are a mix of packages, individual major and minor capital schemes, large revenue schemes or proposed feasibility studies. All are deliverable within the period of this strategy subject to positive decisions regarding their progress and from funding and partner agencies.

Table 8.1 Key Projects Action Plan Project Priority Lead Estimated Possible Funding Sources Organisation Cost Completed Schemes since June 2010 Metrolink Phase 3a (Manchester to Rochdale Railway Station Short Term TfGM - GM Transport Fund - completed 28th February 2013. via Oldham) - Feb 2013 Kingsway Metrolink Stop Short Term TfGM / RMBC £2 million GM Transport Fund, ERDF, RMBC / S106 - completed Retaining Wall Strengthening Major Scheme Short Term RMBC £42.9mill (All GM) LTP Middleton Experimental Weight Restriction Short Term RMBC £44 000 RMBC / LTP Home & School Zone Programme Short Term RMBC £1 million RMBC / LTP Page 53 Page Littleborough Railway Station Disability Access Short Term TfGM / Network Rail £1.1 million Network Rail / Northern Rail / TfGM - completed Nov 2012 Rochdale Town Centre Modelling Short Term RMBC - RMBC Rochdale Station Waiting / Ticket Office Impvts Short Term Northern Rail £400 000 Northern Rail / Network Rail Connect 2 Cycle Network Imps (Dec 2012) Short Term Sustrans / RMBC / Canal & £1.8 million Big Lottery Fund / RMBC / External Funding / S106 River Trust Heywood Weight Restriction Short Term RMBC £241 000 RMBC Kingsway Link DRT Service Short Term TfGM - TfGM - LSTF - introduced February 2013 Rochdale Public Transport Interchange Short Term TfGM / RMBC £11.5 million LTP Major Scheme / RMBC - opened 17th Nov. 2013 Schemes under Construction Metrolink Phase 3b (Rochdale Railway Station to Town Short Term TfGM £37 million GM Transport Fund Centre) Rochdale, Townhead Junction Improvements Short Term RMBC £500 000 RMBC Todmorden Curve Reinstatement Short Term Network Rail / Burnley BC Est £9 million RGF / Burnley BC / Private Sector Schemes with Funding Commitment Cross City Bus Corridor (to/from Middleton) Short Term TfGM £54million (All GM) GM Transport Fund / DfT Rochdale Rail Station / Metrolink Park & Ride Short Term TfGM / RMBC £1 million GM Transport Fund / RMBC Access Imps to Metrolink / Rail Stations Short Term TfGM / RMBC £1 million LSTF / RMBC Rochdale Townhead Junction Imp (Phase 3) Short Term RMBC £600 000 RMBC Northern Hub Capacity Imps - Rochdale Station Medium term Network Rail £17 million Network Rail Northern Hub - Ordsall Curve (Manc / Salford) Medium term Network Rail £85 million Network Rail M62 J18-J20 Hard Shoulder Running Short term Highways Agency To be Confirmed Highways Agency - Start 2014-2015 Rochdale Health Centre Cycle Hub Short Term TfGM / PCT £117 000 TfGM - LSTF 49

Table 8.1 Key Projects Action Plan (continued) Project Priority Lead Estimated Possible Funding Sources Organisation Cost (£'s) Proposals Rochdale Town Centre Rochdale, John St to Oldham Rd Congestion Relief Medium Term RMBC tbc RMBC / LTP / S106 / CIL Rochdale PT interchange Cycle Park Hub Short Term RMBC / TFGM £120 000 RMBC / DfT / TfGM Rochdale TC Access & Movement Strategy - John Street to Penn Street Medium term RMBC tbc RMBC / HCA / External Funding - Rochdale Town Centre - Review / Replace Subways Medium Term RMBC tbc RMBC / TfGM / External Funding - Rochdale TC Pioneers Route (Peds / Cycle Spine) Medium Term RMBC tbc RMBC / TfGM / External Funding - Rochdale Town Hall Rbt Removal & Public Square Medium Term RMBC / RDA tbc RMBC / TfGM / External Funding - Rochdale Town Centre Parking Strategy Delivery Medium Term RMBC tbc RMBC / TfGM / External Funding - Rochdale River Roch Re-opening (& support TM) Short Term RMBC / EA £3.5 million RMBC / EA / S106 / CIL / HLF / External Funding - Esplanade to Newgate Loop Road Medium Term RMBC tbc RMBC / LTP / External Funding Improve Pedestrian / Cycle links to Town Centres Medium Term RMBC tbc RMBC / LTP / S106 / External Funding Middleton, Manchester Road - Long St. Pedestianisation Medium Term RMBC / Private Sector tbc RMBC / LTP / S106 /CIL / External Funding Rochdale Station Gateway Package - Oldham Road to Lincoln Street Link Road Short Term RMBC / RDA £350 000 RMBC / TfGM / S106 / CIL / External Funding Page 54 Page - Public Realm Improvements (Sara St / Miall St) Short Term RMBC / TfGM £75 000 RMBC / TfGM / External Funding - Rochdale Rail Station Subway Re-opening (Ph 1) Short Term RMBC / TfGM / Network £300 000 est RMBC / TfGM / S106 / Network Rail / Northern Rail Rail / Northern Rail Rochdale Railway Station - Major Improvements Medium Term TfGM/Network Rail/RMBC tbc TfGM / RMBC / Network Rail / External Funding Heywood Proposals Heywood Town Centre Pedestrianisation & TM Medium Term RMBC £3.5 million RMBC / RDA / TfGM /S106 / External Funding Heywood Bus Interchange Medium Term RMBC / TfGM £500 000 RMBC / GM Transport Fund / External Funding South Heywood Link Road (M62 - Hareshill Road) Medium Term Private Sector £6 million S106 / CIL / External funding Hareshill Road Improvement Medium Term Private Sector £6 million S106 / CIL / External funding M66 J2 to Heywood SPZ Route Improvements Long Term RMBC / Private Sector tbc RMBC / TfGM / S106 / CIL / External Funding M66 J3 Congestion & Capacity Improvements Long Term RMBC / Bury MBC / HA tbc RMBC / TfGM / S106 / CIL / HA / External Funding East Lancashire Railway ELR Extension to Castleton Station Medium Term ELR Trust / RMBC / TfGM £4 - 8 million RMBC / CIL / S106 / HLR / External Funding Castleton Station Park & Ride Improvements Medium Term RMBC / Private Sector tbc RMBC / External Funding / Network Rail / TfGM Heywood ELR Station Facility Improvements Medium Term ELR Trust / RMBC tbc ELR Trust / RMBC / External Funding New Station at Broadfield, Heywood Long Term ELR Trust / RMBC £4 million ELR Trust / RMBC / S106 / CIL/ External Funding Heywood - Bury Fixed Line Shuttle (Rail - Tram Train) Long Term RMBC / TfGM / ELR Trust tbc RMBC / TfGM / ELR Trust Feasibility Study Heywood, Hopwood Traffic Management Scheme Medium Term RMBC £700 000 DfT / TfGM / RMBC / External Funding Heywood - Manchester PT Commuter Service Imps Long Term RMBC / TfGM / ELR Trust £25 million est TfGM / RMBC / Network Rail / External Funding South Heywood Railfreight Spur / Terminal (Study) Long Term Network Rail / TfGM / ELR tbc Network Rail / TfGM / DfT / ELR Trust / External Trust / RMBC Funding.

50

Table 8.1 Key Projects Action Plan (continued)

Project Priority Lead Estimated Possible Funding Sources Organisation Cost (£'s) Rail Network & Service Improvements Littleborough Railway Station Park and Ride Medium Term RMBC / TfGM / Network Rail tbc RMBC / GM Transport Fund / External Funding Calder Valley Line Electrification to Rochdale Medium Term Network Rail / TfGM / tbc Network Rail / DfT / Northern Hub Calder Valley Line Rail Electrification Long Term Network Rail tbc Network Rail / DfT New Railway Stations Feasibility Study Long Term RMBC / TfGM / Network Rail tbc RMBC / TfGM / Network Rail Mills Hill Rail Station Disability Access Impvts Medium Term TfGM / Network Rail / RMBC £2 million est TfGM / Network Rail Access for All / DfT Mills Hill Rail Station Park & Ride / Improved passenger Medium Term TfGM / Network Rail / RMBC tbc TfGM / Network Rail / DfT / External Funding facilities Smithybridge Park & Ride Enhancements Medium Term RMBC / TfGM / Network Rail tbc RMBC / S106 / GM Transport Fund / External Funding Rolling Stock & Rail Capacity Improvements (HLOS) Medium Term Network Rail / TOC / TfGM tbc HLOS / Network Rail / DfT Bus Improvements Rochdale Metroshuttle Service Medium Term TfGM / RMBC / Ext Funding £140 000 - £400 000 TfGM / RMBC / External Funding A58 & A640 Quality Bus Corridors Medium Term TfGM / RMBC tbc TfGM / LTP / RMBC / External Funding Yellow School Buses Short Term TfGM / RMBC - TfGM / LTP Page 55 Page Improved bus links to other employment areas Short Term TfGM / RMBC - TfGM / LTP / RMBC / External Funding Improved cross town bus links to local amenities Short Term TfGM / RMBC - TfGM LTP / RMBC / External Funding Other Sustainable Transport Schemes Connect 3 Proposals - Middleton to Mills Hill Railway Station Cycleway Medium Term RMBC - RMBC / LTP / S106 / External Funding - Improved Sustainable access to economic growth Medium Term RMBC - RMBC / LTP / S106 / External Funding areas (eg Stakehill, Sth Heywood etc) - Roch Valley Way Strategic Walk / Cycle Trail Medium Term RMBC - RMBC / LTP / S106 / External Funding - Rochdale Canal Cycleway Medium Term RMBC - RMBC / TTP / S106 / External Funding - Middleton TC - Alkrington Woods Cycle Route Short Term RMBC - RMBC / LTP / S106 / External Funding - Heywood TC - Bury TC Cycle Link Imps Short Term RMBC - RMBC / LTP / S106 / External Funding - Improved Cycle Links to Rossendale Short Term RMBC - RMBC / LTP / S106 / External Funding - Littleborough / Smithy Bridge Cycle / Pedestrian Link Short Term RMBC - RMBC / LTP / S106 / External Funding Improvements - Develop Green Infastructure links to local services / Short / Medium RMBC - RMBC / LTP / S106 / External Funding tourist amenities Term

51

Table 8.1 Key Projects Action Plan (continued)

Project Priority Lead Estimated Possible Funding Sources Organisation Cost (£'s) Other Sustainable Transport Schemes (cont) Replace Underpasses with Surface Crossings Medium Term RMBC tbc RMBC / LTP / S106 / CIL / External Funding Develop Council Homeworking Strategy & promote to Medium Term RMBC tbc RMBC external partners High Speed Broadband coverage across Rochdale Short / Medium Term RMBC / External Partners tbc RMBC / Central Govt / External Funding Borough. Future Home / School Zones Short / Medium Term RMBC tbc RMBC / LTP / S106 / CIL / External Funding Future Travel Behavioural Change Measures Short / Medium Term RMBC / TfGM tbc RMBC / TfGM / LTP / External Funding Other Highway Schemes M62 J21 Kingsway Business Park Signing Short Term HA / RMBC tbc HA / S106 Milnrow Network Improvements (M62 J21 - Holl. Lake) Medium Term HA / RMBC tbc RMBC / LTP / HA / GMTF / S106 / External Funding Middleton Hilton Fold Lane to Oldham Road Route Medium Term RMBC / External Funding £2 million RMBC / S106 / External Funding A58 Capacity Improvements (i) Littleborough to Hamer Medium Term RMBC / TfGM £1 million RMBC / LTP / S106 / CIL / External Funding

Page 56 Page (ii) Heywood Improvements Medium Term RMBC / TfGM tbc RMBC / LTP / S106 / CIL / External Funding (iii) Heap Bridge Improvements Medium Term RMBC / TfGM tbc RMBC / LTP / S106 / CIL / External Funding Heywood Bus Priority & Congestion Relief Measures Medium Term TfGM / RMBC tbc TfGM (GMTF) / RMBC / CIL / External Funding Rochdale, Spotland Bridge Congestion Relief Short Term RMBC tbc RMBC / CIL / S106 / External Funding Develop Heywood Freight Quality Partnership Short Term RMBC / Heywood Dist Pk tbc RMBC / Heywood Dist Pk Bridges & Structures Asset Management Plan Short Term RMBC tbc RMBC Highways Asset Management Plan Short Term RMBC tbc RMBC Street Lighting Asset Management Plan Short Term RMBC / PFI tbc RMBC / External Funding Royle Wks / Edinburgh Way Junction Impvmt Short Term RMBC / Ext Funding tbc RMBC / S106 / HCA / External Funding Rochdale Boroughwide Parking Strategy Short Term RMBC tbc RMBC Feasibility Studies Metrolink Extension Bowker Vale to Middleton Long Term TfGM / RMBC tbc RMBC / TfGM / External Funding Metrolink Extension (Rochdale to Whitworth) Long Term TfGM / RMBC tbc RMBC / TfGM / External Funding Enhanced PT Services (Rochdale to Littleborough) Long Term TfGM / RMBC tbc RMBC / TfGM / External Funding

Long Term Aspirations The opportunity has been taken to consider what major projects the Borough may need to deliver its aspirations, support economic growth and deliver its climate change responsibilities in the medium to long term ie. post 2026. Table 8.1 includes some projects that are preliminary ideas and feasibility studies will be required to develop them and demonstrate they have satisfactory business cases before the can be progressed. Some of the long term proposals will only be delivered within the strategy period if resources permit. All proposals will be subject to public consultation and where possible land will be protected through planning policies or land acquisition / dedication agreements. 52

53 Page 57

Contacts

Mark Robinson – Chief Planning Officer Planning Services Directorate of Economy & Environment Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council, Floor 3, Number One Riverside, Smith Street ROCHDALE OL16 1XU Tel: (01706) – 924308 Email:- [email protected]

Helen Smith – Head of Property & Highway Client Services Directorate of Economy and Environment Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council, Floor 4, Number One Riverside, Smith Street ROCHDALE OL16 1XU Tel: (01706) – 925443 Email:- [email protected]

Lisa Houghton – Network Improvement Team Leader Highways and Engineering Service, Directorate of Economy & Environment Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council, Floor 4, Number One Riverside, Smith Street, ROCHDALE OL16 1XU Tel :- (01706) – 924609 Email:- [email protected]

Richard Chapman – Strategic Transport Policy Co-ordinator Strategic Planning Team Directorate of Economy & Environment Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council, Floor 3, Number One Riverside, Smith Street ROCHDALE OL16 1XU Tel: (01706) – 924361 Email:- [email protected]

54 Page 58

55 Page 59 Appendix B:- Comments & Responses from Consultation on Rochdale Borough Transport Strategy Refresh – April 2013 Consultee Consultee’s Comment Response / Action Organisation Moira Percy – Transport for Greater 1,1 TfGM recognise that one of the stated roles of the strategy Agree - Rochdale MBC recognises GM’s Senior Local Manchester (TfGM) is as a lobbying document and therefore understand that success in attracting resources has been the Transport the full extent of Rochdale’s aspirations has been ability to identify & promote transport priorities Officer identified. Greater Manchester’s success to date has come that align with wider economic, social and in part from our ability to identify and promote transport environmental objectives. The strategy is priorities that most clearly support wider economic, social written with this in mind its purpose is not just and environmental policy objectives. Given the scale of to lobby for funding through TfGM. It is also a ambition across the conurbation and the inevitable statement of the Council’s ambitions and to constraints by the availability of funding, we will need to promote them to access a range of funding continue to focus on those initiatives that present the sources, including the private sector. Each strongest business case. In this context it will be important proposal is linked to LTP and Council priorities for Rochdale to clearly identify the most significant (Table 6.1) and an assessment of whether it priorities within the exhaustive list in the strategy so that can be delivered in the short, medium or long resources for business case development can be focussed term (Table 9.1). This offers a degree of Page 60 Page appropriately. TfGM would be happy to discuss this priority and if a proposal does not align with approach to prioritisation further. the priorities in Table 6.1 it has not been included. In the Council’s response to TfGM’s work on Transport Priorities the Council has articulated it major scheme priorities from this wider strategy which should be considered for transport related funding. The main reason for refreshing this strategy was in response to TfGM seeking an approved, prioritised programme.

1.2 Suggestions regarding the “Strategic Context” & “Key Agree. Amend the GM Strategy section to Issues” part of the document: reflect the proposal actions relating to land use The refreshed GM Strategy has now been issued for and transport in the Draft Refresh. consultation, providing an opportunity to update that section of the document (page 7).

1.3 The section on LSTF (Page 9) should mention the now Agree the section on LSTF and have re-written operational enhanced CT service for Kingsway, which is this section to include Kingsway Link, the cycle one of only 4 included in the bid. Further explanation of the hub and the wider programme of smarter “wider programme of improvement and maintenance choice improvements, maintenance, training, initiatives” would help readers to understand how technological and promotional initiatives as Rochdale will benefit from other elements of the bid. The well as the capital projects. travel choices element will provide improved travel advice for jobseekers and travel plan support for employers at 1 Consultee Consultee’s Comment Response / Action Organisation major business sites, while the smart technology element will improve traffic flows, speed up bus services and give passengers real time travel information via smartphones as well as smart ticketing. The key issues section “Connecting Jobs, Education and Training (page 18) should also reflect the greatly improved access now in place for Kingsway. 1.4 The action plan includes a package of measures relating Agree. A section has been added in to the to East Lancashire Railway. It would be helpful if the “Getting More from Heavy Rail Passenger strategy text made reference to the main conclusions of Services” section making reference to the main the East Lancashire West Rochdale Area Study, as this conclusions of ELWRAS and its basis for provides the contemporary context for future decisions in future decisions by TfGM in Heywood that part of Rochdale. The study concluded that operation Township and Castleton area of the Borough. of conventional passenger rail service between Rawtenstall and Manchester with the continued operation of Heritage Rail services is not financially viable, either in terms of benefit to cost ratio and the level of ongoing

Page 61 Page revenue support needed, and that the outcomes of the study should be reviewed in the light of any significant developments regarding the of critical elements of ELR 2020 Development Strategy. TfGM is working with ELR on the aspiration to extend the Heritage Railway to Castleton, hopefully with resultant and associated improvements to Castleton Station which will boost partronage on the Calder Valley Line. A traffic management and bus priority study is well underway to develop highway based improvements in the area.

1.5 In terms of the Key Issues identified (Page 20) we Agree. Added a section on P23 on re- welcome the commitment to continue to work with TfGM, franchising and Rochdale MBC’s commitment WYPTE and other stakeholders to improve services on the to lobbying for its aspirations for railway station Calder Valley Line, which is a major inter–regional and service enhancements. corridor. The aspirations are those that have emerged from the Northern Hub and specific work by WYPTE, Calderdale MBC, Bradford MDC, Rochdale MBC, Network Rail and TfGM, and aim to deliver increased frequencies, journey time improvements, greater capacity and improved quality of rolling stock. In addition, the above working group is reviewing priorities for the Calder Valley stations in terms of investment in facilities, security, car parking and integration. Re-franchising from February 2016 may offer opportunities to achieve these aspirations. 2 Consultee Consultee’s Comment Response / Action Organisation Rochdale’s support will be essential in identifying priorities for station improvements and in lobbying for improvements in both facilitie s and services. 1.6 The GM Retaining Walls Maintenance and GM Urban Agree – Amendment made. Traffic Control schemes were not funded via the GM Transport Fund which they pre-date. Both received LTP major scheme funding.

Richard ST ORM 2.1 1. Introduction Comments and support noted, No change Greenwood - Role and Purpose: We strongly support the vision proposed. It is a council priority to integrate Chairman statement. However we are sceptical that key elements, different modes of transport particularly at “affordable, sustainable, reliable, accessible and transport interchanges and hubs. The strategy integrated”, can be achieved given the recent record of is positive, ambitious and demonstrates absence of bus rail integration in Rochdale, high fares, conviction to delivery of its aspirations. lack of integration of fares and poor reliability. The Council is active in ongoing ambitions to

Page 62 Page The Challenge: We agree that there is a “good frequent improve the Calder Valley Line incrementally rail link between the regional centre and West Yorkshire, towards delivering Electrification of the line in the transport network does not meet the travel demands of Network Rail Control Period 6 (2019-2024). local communities”. This is indeed a real challenge.

2.2 2. St rategic context Comments and support noted. As Metrolink Rochdale Borough Renaissance Masterplan: We agree Phase 3b & Rochdale Town Centre PT with promoting greater density of development around Interchange are under construction and will be public transport hubs and interchanges (railway and bus operational in the next year, these battles have stations and Metrolink stops) but regret the removal of the been lost. Drake Street Metrolink stop which would have helped to regenerate the area and the relocation of the bus station Included reference to the Northern Hub further away from the shopping centre while providing proposals and Ordsall Chord as well as closer access for cars. Todmorden Curve re-instatement in the “ A rail system for our Future Economy” on P9. The Masterplan should be amended to include specific Rochdale Borough Renaissance Masterplan reference and support for the Northern Hub Rail proposals was written prior to the commitment to the for the construction of the Ordsall Curve linking delivery of the Northern Hub in full was Manchester Piccadilly and Victoria stations and the Calder announced. Valley Line capacity improvements, all of which are now committed. As stated earlier a development group of senior Councillors from local authorities Metro “A Rail System for our future economy”: We strongly and TfGM has been established to lobby for support the proposed improvements but note that continuous improvement to the Calder Valley electrification of the Calder Valley line, at least as far as Line towards the ultimate goal of getting the

3 Consultee Consultee’s Comment Response / Action Organisation Rochdale, is not included in any current programmes. line electrified. This is supported by an officer group which also includes Network Rail. Greater Manchester Transport Fund: Metrolink / Rail Park and Ride proposals at Rochdale Railway Station. We are Support the comment regarding the re-opening pleased that a Park and Ride car park has now been of the southern access of Rochdale station provided at Rochdale Railway Station but the pedestrian underpass. TfGM are developing proposals subway link needs to be completed as a matter of urgency. with expected implementation in Autumn 2013. We consider that there are park and ride opportunities at Park & ride improvements at the Boroughs other stations within Rochdale which should be listed in other stations are in the Strategy Action Plan. the strategy. The Council is working to identify and deliver these with its partners. 2.3 3. Current Sit uation – Movement Patterns in Rochdale Agree. 11% of work journeys by public Borough transport & less than 2% by rail is too low We are concerned that less than 11% of work journeys in hence the focus of the transport strategy on Rochdale are by public transport and less than 2% by rail enhancing non-car travel opportunities. There while one third of people do not have a car or van. In each are fluctuations in methods of travel in the case these figures are worse for Rochdale than the different townships. Rochdale and Middleton -

Page 63 Page average for Greater Manchester. higher levels of public transport travel, Heywood - high walk / cycle commuting but Sustainable Transport Network: We agree with the low public transport travel to work levels. comments regarding the Calder Valley line. Still urgent Pennine’s” rurality” means it has high car are improved capacity at peak times, more trains at commuting levels. Littleborough, earlier and later trains, especially at weekends, and improved rolling stock. Class 142 units Comments in relation to Littleborough and may not be able to operate beyond 2019 but there are no future services via Todmorden Curve are plans for their replacement. An additional service is supported and an early aspiration for the expected to serve Blackburn and Burnley (Manchester Council and Calder Valley Line Development Road) when the Todmorden Curve opens. The service Group. If the Todmorden Curve services are pattern has not yet been announced but it should stop at limited stop based on passenger usage Littleborough and Rochdale in Rochdale Borough. Rochdale MBC will lobby for these to be Littleborough, Rochdale and Mills Hill. 2.4 We note the comments regarding Metrolink and that Comments noted. No Change – See response services started to operate to Rochdale Railway Station on to comment 2.1. 28 February 2013, thus finally restoring the rail service which closed in October 2009. We are concerned at the poor reliability and frequent technical problems which have been experienced on this line. We are also appalled at the lack of bus services to Rochdale station giving connections into the town centre. We also again note the absence of the Drake Street stop despite promises over some fifteen years to local businesses that this would encourage regeneration of this run down area. 4 Consultee Consultee’s Comment Response / Action Organisation 2.5 We strongly support the extension of the East Lancashire Support and comments noted. No Change. Railway to Castleton to give interchange with the Calder Valley. However we understand the technical problems in extending this service to Manchester Victoria and the incompatibility of heritage services with commuter services.

2.6 Prioritising Public Transport Improvements: We agree with Support and comments noted. No Change. the priorities for heavy rail. However while there is The Council will continue to lobby and work substantial scope for improvements at stations, particularly with the rail industry for station improvements. for real time information and public address systems and Although unlikely as there is an aspiration for passenger shelters, it is unlikely that there are any Calder Valley Service journey times between justifiable locations for new rail stations in the Borough. Manchester and Bradford Interchange to be 50 While we support exploiting Metrolink, the only additional minutes this strategy runs to 2026 and the station location would be Drake Street which TfGM have Council cannot preclude the need for new refused to consider. It is worth examining the feasibility of stations to meet future economic demand.

Page 64 Page extending Metrolink to other key centres but the capital Comment on Drake Street. Metrolink stop costs are likely to be very high and difficult to justify. The noted and commitment in the strategy is to option of developing the tram-train concept to serve some assess feasibility of fixed PT links to other destinations e.g. Littleborough may be a lower cost and destinations as they are unlikely to be practicable solution. deliverable by 2026.

2.7 Getting More from Heavy Rail Passenger Services: We Support and Comments noted. Revised agree with these proposals and particularly welcome “Prioritising PT Improvements section to additional park and ride at other stations in the Borough. include provision of services through We also consider that there is considerable scope for Manchester City Centre to the Airport, the better integration with bus services but this is limited by the Midlands and South including London. current legislation for bus operation. There is considerable Included signalised. scope for local improvements, e.g. a signalled turnback at Improved rail – bus integration added to Littleborough, line speed improvements, and inclusion in “Improving Bus Service Integration (also the Northern Hub of electrification to Rochdale and the added) Reliability & Frequency” section. west facing bay platform at Rochdale. Also we would Included exploration of a Littleborough support the introduction of a through service to London, signalised turnback facility in the “Getting more preferably integrated with the existing Calder Valley from Heavy Rail” section along with interim service pattern. electrification to Rochdale.

2.8 Maximising the Benefits of Metrolink: While we agree with Comments noted. Included reference to Tram- the concept of maximising the benefits of Metrolink, train option in “Maximising the benefits of extensions to Middleton, Littleborough or Whitworth may Metrolink” section as an alternative if it prove difficult to justify unless the tram-trains concept can enhances the business case for fixed line be adopted. Tram Train solutions in Rochdale would improvements. provide a way of re-linking Bury and Rochdale by rail 5 Consultee Consultee’s Comment Response / Action Organisation (using Tram Trains may also get over the problems associated with heavy rail use on Light Railways). Tram Train associated with 25kv and the Littleborough turnback could transform rail access into Rochdale from Bury, Heywood, Mills Hill, Castleton, Smithy Bridge and Littleborough. If it was coupled with an extension towards Shawclough etc it would provide a very extensive quality public transport system for Rochdale. If Tram Train was adopted across Greater Manchester then the benefits would be huge and enable perhaps more cross city routes to be justified.

2.9 5. Vision and Objectives Comments noted, agree. No change. The The Vision and Objectives are well structured but there Council should be stretching its ambitions and should be no illusions on the difficulties in achieving them. aspire to provide a first class transport network to give inertia to the Borough’s regeneration. 2.10 6. Access to employment Agree. These points made on access to

Page 65 Page The main consideration for public transport in the employment have been included in the Rochdale Borough area must now be better access to “Connecting Jobs, Education and Training employment “hot spots”. We would classify the major Opportunities along with some of the detailed employment hot spots as Manchester City Centre, Salford issues regarding the affordability and operating Quays/Media City, Salford Crescent (for University), times. These are starting to be addressed Oxford Road corridor (for University and Hospitals). through some of the programmes being Manchester Airport, Stockport, Warrington. delivered through the Local Sustainable Transport Fund (LSTF) programme, however The public transport needs to be affordable, convenient services are increasingly dependent on the and preferably without the need to change but a maximum commercial viability of services. of one easy change would usually be acceptable. It also needs start early enough and finish late enough to cater Included the points about timetabling of for shift and other work patterns. A maximum journey services and ticket interoperability in to the time of one hour should be aimed for. Interavailability and Connecting to Jobs, Education and Training. multi-mode ticketing is essential. Generally many local bus services in Rochdale finish too early (around 1800) and start too late (0900) to be of use to working commuters.

2.11 Manchester City Centre has good links from all parts of Points noted. Heywood to Manchester Bus the Borough, either direct or change at Manchester Services not as well used as they could be and Victoria. Heywood and Middleton have good bus need to be more attractive to passengers. services. The Mills Hill area of Middleton is served by rail to Victoria and, offpeak only, to Salford Central, and Access improvements to the strategic location Salford Crescent. outlined in the comment included in the “Taking advantage of Our Strategic Location” 6 Consultee Consultee’s Comment Response / Action Organisation Salford Quays/Media City are served with just one change section on P20-21. via Metrolink but from Rochdale the end to end journey time could be considered excessive. Rail passengers need to change twice, at Victoria to Metrolink and then again at St Peter’s Square (or Cornbrook). When the Metrolink Second City Crossing is completed, consideration should be given to running the Eccles service as an extension of some of the Rochdale/Shaw services. Salford Crescent (for University). Although off peak there is an hourly service from Rochdale, Castleton and Mills Hill, Littleborough and Smithy Bridge are served by only one through train a day in one direction only. Changing trains at Victoria is usually reasonable. Extension of some Calder Valley trains west of Victoria is said to be under consideration.

Page 66 Page Oxford Road Corridor. This is impossible to access by Rail passengers without at least two changes—at Victoria to Metrolink (often overcrowded at peak times) to Market Street then walk to Piccadilly bus station and bus from there.

Manchester Airport - Currently a long journey involving taking Metrolink from Victoria to Piccadilly Station and train from there. The shift patterns at the Airport currently prevent the use of public transport by Rochdale area residents. Even the extension of Metrolink through from Rochdale to the Airport is not likely to be acceptable as the journey time is likely to be over 90 minutes.

Stockport A similar journey to that to the Airport but will be faster when the Northern Hub is completed.

2.12 The Northern Hub (formerly known as Manchester Hub) Comment noted – No Change. due for completion by 2019 should alleviate some of the problems on the three destinations of Oxford Road corridor, Manchester Airport and Stockport if the hitherto proposed rail service of through trains from Rochdale to Oxford Road, Piccadilly and the Airport is in fact provided.

2.13 Better local bus services running into the evening and Points noted and already covered in the 7 Consultee Consultee’s Comment Res ponse / Action Organisation starting earlier in the day from such districts as section (Improving Bus Service Integration, Shawclough, Norden, Wardle, Smallbridge linking to the Reliability and Frequency but strengthened the Bus/Metrolink station and to the Rail station are needed to reference to through Rochdale Town Centre improve commuter acceptance. Currently the only bus Bus Services. service expected to serve Rochdale rail station is the 471 from Bury, Heywood and Sudden. Through buses from Shawclough, Wardle/Smallbridge and Norden to the Rail station are needed to maximise the acceptability of public transport for commuters. Research needs to be done on how commuters using Rochdale railway station access the station. The transport provided needs to be flexible enough to cater for local changes and variations. Already it has been pointed out that the first Metrolink tram from Rochdale in a morning (at 0559) is too late to enable it to be of use to people working at the several Mail Order warehouses at Shaw where one of the shifts starts at 0600.

Page 67 Page 2.14 Warrington can be dismissed since most employment Comment noted and removed reference to initiatives are outside the town and reasonable public Warrington. transport from the Rochdale area is unlikely to be feasible.

Roy Chapman Transport for Greater 3.1 Please find attached my version with track changes. Agree. Comments mostly included verbatim. – TfGM Rail Manchester (TfGM) But Section on Renaissance Masterplan I have raised the profile of the heavy rail element, namely, written on the actual document. Written • Calder Valley upgrade and electrification addition paragraphs outlining the transport proposal approved since 2010 which will • Electrification extended to Rochdale by 2016 influence the plan including Northern Hub, • Further upgrade of Rochdale Station (inc. Station Gateway Master Plan and Heywood improving integration with Metrolink) and Castleton Masterplan. • Upgrades at Mills Hill You also need to add a small section that refers to DDA Mentioned DDA accessibility at Mills Hill accessibility and in the case of rail the upgrade of Mills Hill Station in the Prioritising Public Transport (see attached) for some ideas. Hope this helps. Improvements section on P22 and it is included in the action plan. 3.2 Borough Renaissance Masterplan (P6 Para 2) Agree – Particular electrification extended to Its spatial framework includes; Rochdale by 2016. See above. • an M62 investment corridor; • Metrolink Regeneration corridor; • Enhancing town centres; and • Improving Green Infrastructure.

8 Consultee Consultee’s Comment Response / Action Organisation Add • The Council’s Station Gateway Masterplan

A spin off from Metrolink but also highlighting its specific needs (namely heavy rail at Mills Hill & Rochdale Station ie the rail corridor & station areas.

3.3 P8 Para 3 - A Rail System for our future economy Agree. Included as requested with slightly Add – “Rochdale MBC welcomes this, but specifically amended text to fit in with other amendments would wish to see investment in the main line linking to that section. Manchester with Bradford and Leeds to reduce journey times and improve the frequency and quality of services. Under the Northern Hub, Rochdale MBC would wish to see electrification extended to Rochdale by 2016, and longer term to Bradford and Leeds. Rochdale MBC would also wish to see further investment to improve Rochdale

Page 68 Page station”.

3.4 Key Issues P18 after Para 3 add Agree. Included in “Taking advantage of our “In terms of Rail access to the Regional Centre and Strategic Location – Access to the Regional beyond, and also to West Yorkshire, for employment and Centre” section. higher education, Rochdale MBC sees the main rail link as being vital. Rochdale MBC wishes to see more investment in the main line linking Manchester with Bradford and Leeds to reduce journey times and improve the frequency and quality of services. Under the Northern Hub, Rochdale MBC would wish to see electrification extended to Rochdale by 2016 and longer term to Bradford a\nd Leeds. Rochdale MBC would also wish to see further investment to improve Rochdale station”.

3.5 Prioritising public transport projects P20 Para 3 Agree. – Added both comments as requested. Third bullet point At the end add “and greatly improved facilities. Specifically at Mills Hill, this includes DDA compatible access;”

Para 5 add 4 th bullet point - • Improvements to access and facilities including the Borough’s Stations including park and ride to form recognised and established transport interchanges and greatly improved facilities. Specifically at Mills Hill, 9 Consultee Consultee’s Comment Response / Action Organisation this includes DDA compatible access.

3.6 Getting More from Heavy Rail Passenger Agree. All comments added with slight textual Services (Page 20-21) amendments. Heavy rail passenger services serving the Borough on the Calder Valley Line particularly at peak times are heavily used. Capacity of services into Manchester until recently were exceeded with commuters at some stations (particularly Mills Hill) being unable to board their intended train. Additional (extremely aged) rolling stock has been secured lengthening trains and easing this. Additional services on Sundays have also eased overcrowding. The Council continues to work with neighbouring local authorities, the train operator and both Transport for Greater Manchester (TfGM) and Metro (West Yorkshire ITA) (add) “to develop proposals” and lobby for further capacity initially to accommodate additional services using

Page 69 Page the reinstated Todmorden Curve, better rolling stock through HLOS (High Level Specification Output) and line speed and capacity improvements (through the Northern Hub). Rochdale MBC also wishes to see electrification to Rochdale by 2016 and, in the long term, the Council will be seeking electrification of the Calder Valley Line.

The delivery of the Northern Hub proposals in full is welcomed and secure direct services through Manchester City Centre, (delete “to the airport and destinations” Add “to the west, via the Ordsall Chord Piccadilly, with connections beyond to the Midlands and the South Add “(including the Capital) and to Manchester Airport. These measures combined with enhanced integration with other modes will make a significant contribution to growing the local economy, and improving access to social amenities for the local communities served by the line. We will work and lobby in support of any business case required to justify these upgrades and capacity enhancements to the Calder Valley Line (Add) “in the short to medium term and electrification, in the longer term (after 2018).

John Highways & 4.1 We feel there should be some reference to the Council’s Agree. Included a section on Network Grahamslaw Engineering – ‘Network Management Duty’ as required by the Traffic Management duties covering the issues in the – Traffic Rochdale MBC Management Act 2004, this is a legal duty of the local submitted text. As requested this has been 10 Manager authority that underpins many of the priorities of the draft inserted after the “Managing Travel Demand” Rochdale Transport Strategy and sits alongside section in the Key Issues Chapter. “Improving Local Transport Safety” and “ Maintaining the Transport Network” as key issues.

We would like to see the following inserted under “section 4/ Key issues”. “Network management Duty” should be inserted after “Managing Travel Demand” Network Management Duty Strengthening many of the aims within this Transport Strategy is Rochdale’s own Network Management Duty as outlined in the Traffic Management Act 2004. This Act places a legal requirement on Rochdale to “facilitate the expeditious movement of traffic on the Authority’s road network”. To meet its obligation as the local highway authority, Rochdale Council is tasked with managing the highway network to minimise congestion and disruption on the boroughs road network and also to ensure that it is Page 70 Page managed in the most efficient, effective and safe manner possible, both for the people of Rochdale and those who travel through it.

This duty is carried out in partnership with TFGM and in line with the governance arrangement outlined in LTP3. The Act required the appointment of a Traffic Manager who oversees these Network Management Duties which are outlined in the Council’s Network Management Plan.

The Network Management Plan is currently in draft form. Since the formation of TFGM there has been a desire to create a document for the whole of Greater Manchester with Rochdale Plan forming part of the document. The final draft will identify the information, policies and work being carried out under various initiatives supporting Rochdale Council’s commitment to carry out its many Network Management functions under the Traffic Management Act.

Tony Lees – Highw ays & 4.2 Comments made as follows: Agree. Included all your comments and Team Leader Engineering – updated data to reflect the current targets for (Casualty Rochdale MBC o Appendix 1 shows Road Safety targets and refers to casualty reduction and Vision 2020. Have Reduction) 2004-06 figures, I attach details of current figures done away with Appendix 1 and included this together with the target/vision for 2020. information I the “Improving Local Transport Safety”. The reference to 2020 was an error 11 Consultee Consultee’s Comm ent Response / Action Organisation o We are currently delivering 20mph speed limits/zones and has been amended. outside all schools within the borough o We receive a grant from DfT to deliver 1950 cycle training places to children in the borough. o We have just bid for money from TfGM to tackle a key accident hotspot for vulnerable road users (Littleborough Centre). o We are about to carry out a total refresh of our accident hotspots, analysing and prioritizing key locations and routes throughout the borough. In page 24 you refer to the reduction in pedestrian and cycle casualties in 2020 which is assumed to be a drafting error.

Richard Chapman Strategic Transport Policy Co-ordinator Page 71 Page Planning Service Directorate of Economy & Environment - Rochdale MBC 24th April 2013.

12

October 2013

Rochdale Borough’s Strategy for Flood Risk Management 2013- 2023 (Consultation Draft)

Mark Widdup, Director of Economy and Environment, Rochdale Borough Council

For information please contact: Strategic Planning Team – [email protected] – 01706 924252

Page 72

Page 73 F o r e w o r d

Foreword

We live in a changing climate where risk from flooding is one of the environmental challenges we need to prepare for as residents, neighbourhoods and businesses. Flooding can change places and lives and disrupt our economy and its effects can be hard to recover from. We can’t remove all risk from flooding but we can take steps to reduce it significantly and be better prepared to deal with flooding and its effects such as from our rivers and surface water.

Working with our partners such as the Environment Agency, Rochdale Council as a Lead Local Flood Authority will work to make people and businesses better informed about flood risk affecting them and how to help reduce it. We will also seek to help people and businesses to be better prepared to deal with flooding when it happens. In addressing flood risk in our borough we will work closely with our partners to improve our drainage systems and flood defences to reduce risk in the borough now and for the future and ensure that development is well located and contributes to managing flood risk better. Our strategy seeks to ensure that Rochdale borough, its people and its economy is well prepared and as resilient to the range of flood risks affecting the borough as possible.

Councillor Peter Williams – Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Economic Development and Customer Services

Rochdale Borough’s Strategy for FloodPage Risk Management 74 2013-2023 (Consultation Draft) October 2013 Executive Summary

Executive Summary

Flooding can change places and lives overnight. It is important that Rochdale borough, its people and economy is well prepared and is as resilient to the range of flood risks affecting the borough as possible. The Flood and Water Management Act 2010 sets out a range of roles and responsibilities for Rochdale Council as a Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) which include preparing a district flood risk management strategy setting out local flood risks and how the LLFA proposes to address them. As a LLFA, Rochdale Council has three types of flood risk for which it has specific responsibility i.e. flooding from surface water, Ordinary watercourses and groundwater. The Council will work with other flood risk management authorities including the Environment Agency and United Utilities and with other partners and stakeholders including developers, local businesses and residents, neighbouring local authorities and emergency services in delivering its duties and powers.

Flood risk is a dynamic issue and future influences on flood risk in the borough include:

 More extreme and intense rainfall events through predicted climate change impacts;  Investment in flood risk management infrastructure;  The location of new development and change in the urban environment;  The location and quality of green infrastructure including trees and peat moorland;  Agricultural practices and riparian ownership; and  Greater awareness and acceptance of risk and preparedness for flood events.

The Council’s objectives for flood risk management are to:

 Understand our flood risks better;  Communicate those risks more effectively to those who are at risk from flooding and with those who can help manage and respond to flood risk and its consequences;  Help people, communities and businesses to take greater ownership of flood risk where they can manage and where possible reduce their risk and be better prepared to respond to and recover from flood events;  Work as a LLFA with other flood risk management agencies to manage flood risk better, reduce the impact of flooding and wherever possible reduce or remove the risk of flooding through investing in our drainage infrastructure and its future management;

Rochdale Borough’s Strategy for FloodPage Risk Management 75 2013-2023 (Consultation Draft) October 2013 Executive Summary

 Ensure that development and land management do not increase flood risks and contribute to sustainable drainage and reduction of flood risk; and  Ensure that how we manage and reduce flood risk helps our local communities, economy and environment to be more resilient to climate change impacts and helps to deliver a clean and safe water environment, rich in wildlife and opportunities for its enjoyment.

Guiding principles for Rochdale Council’s flood risk management approach are:

 Consistency with national strategy and other local plans and strategies;  Working together with people and organisations in an inclusive, well co- ordinated approach to addressing and managing flood risk;  A whole catchment approach ensuring risk is not transferred or increased elsewhere and that effective measures can be delivered;  Maximising economic, environmental and social benefits;  Delivering sustainable solutions which meet the needs of all communities at risk of flooding including the most vulnerable members of our communities;  Flood risk management should be proportionate, well targeted and represent good value for money; and  Encouraging and securing a wide range of investment in flood risk management from risk management authorities and beneficiaries.

The Council’s strategy will be delivered by a specific delivery plan with an annually updated work programme including:

 Studies and investigations to ensure targeting of activities and proposals are well planned and based on good evidence;  On-going maintenance activities for flood risk management assets, land and water bodies and highways;  Partnership projects with other Risk Management Authorities including the Environment Agency and United Utilities to ensure more effective and integrated drainage and flood resilience strategies can be delivered for all sources of flood risk;  Development led sustainable drainage systems and flood defence measures;  Local authority asset improvement programmes; and  Local community projects including environmental improvements, property level flood resilience, awareness and preparedness activities.

A series of strategic projects have been identified for development where they will help address the borough’s most significant flood risks and enable opportunities for strategic partnership working and investment in flood risk management to be maximised. These are:

Rochdale Borough’s Strategy for FloodPage Risk Management 76 2013-2023 (Consultation Draft) October 2013 Executive Summary

 The River Roch – Littleborough to Rochdale Town Centre;  Central Heywood; and  Rochdale Flood Resilience Community Pathfinder (central Heywood and East Central Rochdale).

The strategy will be subject to monitoring and evaluation of progress against agreed indicators, targets and objectives.

Rochdale Borough’s Strategy for FloodPage Risk Management 77 2013-2023 (Consultation Draft) October 2013 C o n t e n t s

Rochdale Borough’s Strategy for Flood Risk Management 2013-2023 (Consultation Draft)

October 2013

Contents Foreword ...... Executive Summary ...... 1 Why publish a strategy for flood risk management? ...... 1 2 Our objectives for flood risk management in Rochdale borough ...... 2 3 Who should read this strategy? ...... 3 4 Legislation and strategic plans guiding flood risk management ...... 4 The Flood and Water Management Act 2010 ...... 5 The Water Framework Directive ...... 8 Conserving the natural environment ...... 9 The National Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management Strategy for England 2011 ...... 9 The National Planning Policy Framework ...... 10 5 Flood risk management in Rochdale borough ...... 11 Irwell Catchment Flood Risk Management Plan (FMP) 2009 ...... 11 Sources of flooding in Rochdale borough and challenges ...... 12 Fluvial flooding ...... 13 Surface water flooding ...... 15 Groundwater flooding ...... 17 Canal flooding ...... 17 Reservoir flooding ...... 18 Other water bodies ...... 18 Sewer flooding ...... 18 Influences on future flood risk ...... 20 6 Local plans and strategies ...... 23 7 Working together...... 25 8 Managing Rochdale Council’s flood risk management assets ...... 28

Rochdale Borough’s Strategy for FloodPage Risk Management 78 2013-2023 (Consultation Draft) October 2013 C o n t e n t s

9 Development and sustainable drainage ...... 30 10 Protecting and improving our environment ...... 32 11 Civil contingencies and resilience ...... 35 12 Priorities for the Lead Local Flood Authority ...... 37 13 Delivering our strategic objectives ...... 42 14 Our Strategic Projects ...... 47 The River Roch – Littleborough to Rochdale Town Centre ...... 49 Central Heywood ...... 50 Flood Resilience Community Pathfinder ...... 51 15 Funding ...... 52 16 Monitoring and review ...... 54 17 Further information...... 56 18 Appendix 1 - AGMA policy for investigating flood incidents ...... 58 19 Appendix 2 – Flood risk in Rochdale borough and its relationship to multiple deprivation ...... 64

Figures

Figure 1 Flood risk management local roles and responsibilities ...... 4 Figure 2 Drainage network overview for Rochdale borough ...... 7 Figure 3 Irwell Catchment Flood Management Plan overview ...... 12 Figure 4 Fluvial flash flooding warning areas in Rochdale borough ...... 15 Figure 5 Surface water hotspots of Rochdale borough based on GM SWMP ...... 16 Figure 6 Areas susceptible to groundwater flooding in Rochdale borough ...... 17 Figure 7 Illustration of potential exposure of Rochdale town centre to current and future (with climate change) surface water flooding (EcoCities project) ...... 20 Figure 8 Governance arrangements for flood risk management in the North West England 27 Figure 9 Designated nature conservation sites within Rochdale borough (2013) ...... 33 Figure 10 Roch Valley River Park indicative boundary ...... 34 Figure 11 Managing the risk of flooding ...... 38 Figure 12 Strategic flood risk management priorities in Rochdale borough ...... 48 Figure 13 Flood risk in Rochdale borough and its relationship to multiple deprivation ..... 64

Rochdale Borough’s Strategy for FloodPage Risk Management 79 2013-2023 (Consultation Draft) October 2013 C o n t e n t s

Acronyms

AGMA Association of Greater Manchester Authorities Defra Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs EU European Union FMP Flood Risk Management Plan GM CCRU Greater Manchester Civil Contingencies and Resilience Unit LLFA Lead Local Flood Authority NPPF National Planning Policy Framework OFWAT The Water Services Regulation Authority RFCC Regional Flood and Coastal Committee SAB Sustainable Drainage Approval Body SAC Special Area of Conservation SPA Special Protection Area SUDS Sustainable Drainage Systems WFD Water Framework Directive

Rochdale Borough’s Strategy for FloodPage Risk Management 80 2013-2023 (Consultation Draft) October 2013 C o n t e n t s

Rochdale Borough’s Strategy for FloodPage Risk Management 81 2013-2023 (Consultation Draft) October 2013 Why publish a strategy for flood risk management? P a g e | 1

1 Why publish a strategy for flood risk management?

1.1 Flooding can change places and lives overnight with often dramatic and sometimes long term disruption to people’s lives, properties and communities. Local businesses, jobs and employment can be affected, property can be blighted and there can be a significant risk to health and lives. It is therefore absolutely essential that we understand and take ownership of our flood risks as residents, communities, businesses and as organisations with a responsibility for helping to manage and reduce flood risk and its impacts both today and for the future.

1.2 Flood risk can come from many sources, often in combination. Many of these can be reduced or even eliminated quickly and relatively inexpensively through better awareness of what contributes to flood risk and by often small changes to how we maintain our environment, properties and go about our daily lives. There are also more complex and long term causes for why flooding occurs in Rochdale district, sometimes located outside our borough requiring substantial investment in our drainage infrastructure and careful consideration of how we develop and manage land and buildings today and for the future.

1.3 It is important to understand and accept that all flood risk cannot be removed from our communities. Our changing climate with unpredictable and extreme weather combining with a range of local factors will always have the potential to create a flood event whether minor or more severe. Flood events can also occur very quickly and at any time of year such as ‘flash’ flooding after extreme heavy rainfall which for example may overload drainage systems or fall on hard dry ground where it cannot soak away. The strategy therefore seeks to ensure that Rochdale borough, its people and its economy is well prepared and is as resilient to the range of flood risks potentially affecting the borough as possible.

Rochdale Borough’s Strategy for FloodPage Risk Management 82 2013-2023 (Consultation Draft) October 2013 Our objectives for flood risk management in Rochdale borough P a g e | 2

2 Our objectives for flood risk management in Rochdale borough

2.1 Our objectives for flood risk management are put simply to:

 Understand our flood risks better;  Communicate those risks more effectively to those who are at risk from flooding and with those who can help manage and respond to flood risk and its consequences;  Help people, communities and businesses to take greater ownership of flood risk where they can manage and where possible reduce their risk and be better prepared to respond to and recover from flood events;  Work as a Lead Local Flood Authority with other flood risk management agencies to manage flood risk better, reduce the impact of flooding and wherever possible reduce or remove the risk of flooding through investing in our drainage infrastructure and its future management;  Ensure that development and land management do not increase flood risks and contribute to sustainable drainage and reduction of flood risk; and  Ensure that how we manage and reduce flood risk helps our local communities, economy and environment to be more resilient to climate change impacts and helps to deliver a clean and safe water environment, rich in wildlife and opportunities for its enjoyment.

Rochdale Borough’s Strategy for FloodPage Risk Management 83 2013-2023 (Consultation Draft) October 2013 Who should read this strategy? P a g e | 3

3 Who should read this strategy?

3.1 Flood risk affects us all and as such this strategy is aimed at a wide range of interests. These include:

 Local businesses and residents to increase awareness of flood risk in the borough, how the Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) proposes to manage it, including in partnership with other Risk Management Authorities and to provide an opportunity to play a more active part in how flood risk is managed;  Risk Management Authorities and emergency services to provide clarity about the LLFA priorities and identify where partnership and co- operation can and should be strengthened between organisations and across district boundaries;  Policy and funding bodies including Government, the Regional Flood and Coastal Committee and the Environment Agency to provide clear evidence of the LLFA’s commitment and approach to delivering its responsibilities and how the LLFA proposes to address local priorities including through grant in aid and partnership funded works; and  Developers and land managers to ensure that flood risk is fully incorporated into their operations and proposals for the future use and development of land.

Rochdale Borough’s Strategy for FloodPage Risk Management 84 2013-2023 (Consultation Draft) October 2013 Legislation and strategic plans guiding flood risk management P a g e | 4

4 Legislation and strategic plans guiding flood risk management

4.1 After the widespread flooding experienced in 2007, Sir Michael Pitt was appointed to carry out an independent review of flood risk management policy and practice. The review, published in 2008 called for urgent and fundamental changes to how flood risk was managed and this included an enhanced role for local authorities in terms of co-ordinating flood risk management in their areas.

4.2 Flood risk management is the responsibility of many different organisations who incorporate this into their operation and future investments in infrastructure and how it is maintained. Figure 1 below sets out some of the key organisations involved in flood risk management and their roles and responsibilities in the context of Rochdale borough.

Figure 1 Flood risk management local roles and responsibilities

Flooding type Description Party responsible for managing the risk Surface water flooding Flooding from intense Rochdale Borough Council downpours of rain that result in large volumes of run-off from land or when drainage systems cannot cope with the amount of rainfall. Groundwater flooding Occurs when the ground Rochdale Borough Council water table rises causing flooding. Highway flooding Occurs when the highway Rochdale Borough Council / drainage system or the Highways Agency sewers they discharge into cannot cope with the amount of rainfall entering the system, or when gully’s become blocked. Ordinary watercourses Flooding from intense Rochdale Borough Council downpours of rain that result in large volumes of run-off from land causes streams and culverts not marked on the main river map to overflow. Main river Flooding from rivers or Environment Agency streams on the main river map.

Rochdale Borough’s Strategy for FloodPage Risk Management 85 2013-2023 (Consultation Draft) October 2013 Legislation and strategic plans guiding flood risk management P a g e | 5

Flooding type Description Party responsible for managing the risk Reservoirs Flooding from reservoirs Environment Agency falling under the provisions of the Reservoirs Act 1975 Sewer flooding Occurs when the amount of United Utilities water entering the sewer system exceeds its design capacity or when the system becomes blocked. Water supply flooding Occurs when water mains United Utilities burst. Canals Breaches of embankments Canal and River Trust supporting canals can result in flooding. Railways Flooding from intense Network Rail downpours of rain that result in large volumes of run-off from land on the railway or when drainage systems on the rail network cannot cope with the amount of rainfall.

The Flood and Water Management Act 2010

4.3 The Act, published in 2010 includes many of the recommendations of the Pitt Review and establishes a number of roles and responsibilities with associated duties and powers for local authorities as Lead Local Flood Authorities (LLFA). The main responsibilities are:

 providing the local lead and co-ordination for flood risk management;  to act consistently with national flood risk management strategy;  preparing a register of structures and features of significance for flood defence and management;  where appropriate designating such assets where they are owned by a third party;  consenting and enforcing as required, works affecting flood risk management on Ordinary watercourses;  investigating flood events and their causes and publishing a report where that event is considered to be significant;  Establishing a Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) Approval Body and managing and maintaining adopted SuDS systems in line with national guidelines; and  Preparing a district flood risk management strategy setting out local flood risks and how the LLFA proposes to address them.

Rochdale Borough’s Strategy for FloodPage Risk Management 86 2013-2023 (Consultation Draft) October 2013 Legislation and strategic plans guiding flood risk management P a g e | 6

4.4 The LLFA has specific responsibility for three types of flooding affecting Rochdale borough which are from:

 Surface water – Intense rainfall over a short period of time is often unable to get into drainage systems and watercourses quickly enough. As a result water will flow above ground and gather in low spots which can flood properties, roads and other local infrastructure often rising quickly and dispersing over a period of hours. Managing and minimising surface water flood risk requires close working within the local authority e.g. with highway authority officers but also external agencies including United Utilities as the sewerage undertaker, the Highways Agency and the Environment Agency;  Ordinary Watercourses – The Environment Agency is responsible for fluvial flood risk management for the “main rivers” located in the borough which are shown on their Main Rivers map available through their website. Ordinary watercourses are typically small streams and brooks which flow into these larger rivers. The location of the borough’s principal main rivers and ordinary watercourses are illustrated in Figure 2; and  Groundwater – Groundwater flooding occurs when rainfall has caused the natural water table in the ground to rise. This is a less common form of flooding in Rochdale borough but as Groundwater risk is perhaps less understood than other forms, the LLFA will work with other risk management agencies to improve available data and identify where risk is more significant.

Rochdale Borough’s Strategy for FloodPage Risk Management 87 2013-2023 (Consultation Draft) October 2013 Legislation and strategic plans guiding flood risk management P a g e | 7

Figure 2 Drainage network overview for Rochdale borough

4.5 Whilst flooding is often clearly related to a specific source it can in many cases be a complex interaction of types of flood risk for example when a river is in flood, surface water may not be able to find a watercourse to drain into and hence may worsen and extend the flood and the area affected.

4.6 The roles and responsibilities for flood risk are considered further as required throughout this strategy. As flood risk and how it is best managed often involves addressing a range of issues it is important that Risk Management Agencies work together to develop more joined up solutions which may involve partnership working and more integrated infrastructure and investment plans.

4.7 Other flood risk management requirements are placed upon LLFA’s in the Flood Risk Regulations 2009 which transposes the EU Flood Directive into law for England and Wales. The Regulations require a Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment to be undertaken as a high level screening exercise to indicate whether flood risk within the LLFA boundary meets specific nationally defined criteria and affects 30,000 homes or more. This screening was carried out across Greater Manchester rather than within one district due to the interaction between centres of population and areas of flood risk in the core of the conurbation and used the best available national and local data. A Greater Manchester Flood Risk Area has been identified including a part of Rochdale

Rochdale Borough’s Strategy for FloodPage Risk Management 88 2013-2023 (Consultation Draft) October 2013 Legislation and strategic plans guiding flood risk management P a g e | 8

borough. An assessment of risk and hazard for the Greater Manchester Flood Risk Area with a high level flood risk action plan will be completed by 2015 working with the Environment Agency. This plan will draw on local strategies and existing data about flood risk and identify strategic flooding issues for Greater Manchester requiring co-operation across districts and agencies.

The Water Framework Directive

4.8 The Water Framework Directive (WFD) came into force in December 2000 and became a part of UK law in December 2003. It has several key objectives for protecting water sources, improving quality and achieving sustainable use and management of water and applies to all surface and ground water bodies. Objectives include preventing water quality deterioration, restoring surface waters to good ecological and chemical status, reducing and controlling pollution, and balancing abstraction from and recharge of water bodies and sources. The Directive seeks to contribute to mitigating the effects of floods and droughts and flood risk management is therefore one of the primary ways in which the UK can deliver multiple objectives of the Directive.

4.9 Activities undertaken by the LLFA and others which could affect WFD requirements may require a specific assessment to ensure compliance and that the water environment is not damaged or adversely affected. This can include works for maintenance of water bodies and related land and infrastructure and also new capital works such as those to manage flood risk.

4.10 The North West River Basin Management Plan (2009) sets out the strategy for meeting WFD in the North West. Ensuring that Rochdale borough’s approach to flood risk management complies with and helps deliver the objectives of the WFD is one of the core objectives of this strategy and will include ensuring that:

 Rochdale Council complies with the duty to protect and enhance the water environment;  Plans and strategies are consistent with the North West River Basin Management Plan;  Flood risk management works will protect and wherever possible enhance naturalisation of water bodies, biodiversity, access to and enjoyment of water; and  Opportunities for future improvement to the water environment and water bodies are protected and where possible enhanced.

Rochdale Borough’s Strategy for FloodPage Risk Management 89 2013-2023 (Consultation Draft) October 2013 Legislation and strategic plans guiding flood risk management P a g e | 9

Conserving the natural environment

4.11 In addition to the requirements of the WFD for protecting and enhancing the water environment, the requirements of the EU Habitats Directive must also be given appropriate consideration where works could affect a ‘Natura 2000’ site i.e. sites throughout the European Union which are statutorily protected for their habitats which may be both rare and declining. These sites include Special Areas of Conservation (SAC) and also Special Protection Areas (SPA) which are designated under the EU Birds Directive for their importance for bird species and communities. Such sites can be sensitive to impacts such as the effect of changes to drainage patterns, potential for ground or water pollution and activities such as dredging. As such it is important to ensure that proposals which could impact on such sites are identified and appropriately assessed with specific approval to proceed sought where required to ensure they can be carried out, avoiding harm to species and habitats of recognised importance and ensuring appropriate mitigation takes place.

4.12 Rochdale borough includes a long section of the Rochdale Canal SAC and a part of the South Pennine Moors SAC/SPA which is located in the South Pennines watershed and includes water gathering catchments and a number of reservoirs and watercourses draining into water bodies in Rochdale district and beyond. The LLFA working with other risk management authorities as required will ensure that proposals for flood risk management including for flood defences and water storage are subject to robust scoping and that Natural England, the body with responsibility for ensuring the protection and good management of Natura 2000 sites are properly consulted and engaged to determine where further Habitat Regulations Assessment and associated approvals may be required.

The National Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management Strategy for England 2011

4.13 The National strategy, published by Defra and the Environment Agency in 2011 aims to ensure that Risk Management Authorities i.e. those organisations with a responsibility for managing specific types of flood risk or assets which can affect flood risk management, deliver effective flood risk management. This includes understanding each of their roles and responsibilities, use of up to date data sources to inform their activities and that they work together to co- ordinate and deliver their activities more effectively where needed including flood warning and response, investing in infrastructure to improve standards of flood protection and avoiding inappropriate development and use of land. The strategy further stresses the need to support communities and local decision making to raise awareness and help communities to be better prepared to manage and reduce flood risk and respond to flooding and its impacts including

Rochdale Borough’s Strategy for FloodPage Risk Management 90 2013-2023 (Consultation Draft) October 2013 Legislation and strategic plans guiding flood risk management P a g e | 10

in communities at significant risk but less able to afford the cost of flood risk protection and recovery. Actions to manage or reduce flood risk should be sustainable with multiple benefits for people, the economy and environment. These objectives form a part of the core objectives for Rochdale borough’s strategy.

The National Planning Policy Framework

4.14 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) March 2010 sets out the Government’s planning policies for England and how they are expected to be applied. The NPPF provides the framework for local and neighbourhood plans and seeks to deliver development which is sustainable in economic, social and environmental terms. Meeting the challenge of flood risk is one of the objectives of the NPPF as part of addressing climate change and reducing the vulnerability of communities to flood risk. New development should not increase flood risk on site or elsewhere and should include measures where necessary such as green infrastructure to avoid and reduce the risk of flooding. Inappropriate development in areas of high flood risk should be avoided and directed to more appropriate areas where possible or made safe where this is necessary development at that location. The NPPF requires that local plans should be informed by Strategic Flood Risk Assessments and include the advice of the Environment Agency, the LLFA and other risk management authorities in developing planning policies. Local Plans should apply a Sequential Test when needed to guide the location of development to help ensure it is safe and that if development is unavoidable it meets an Exception Test where it can be shown that development could not be located elsewhere and would be safe for its lifetime. Local Planning Authorities are also required to safeguard land that may be required for current or future flood risk management.

Rochdale Borough’s Strategy for FloodPage Risk Management 91 2013-2023 (Consultation Draft) October 2013 Flood risk management in Rochdale borough P a g e | 11

5 Flood risk management in Rochdale borough

5.1 Rochdale borough forms a part of the wider River Irwell catchment which drains into the River Mersey through Greater Manchester. The main settlements of Rochdale borough including Rochdale, Heywood, Littleborough, Middleton and Milnrow grew through the industrial revolution with much of that growth centred around water power and transport in the main river valleys such as the Roch, Beal, Irk and Spodden where town centres, mills and housing were built often at a high density. The South Pennine uplands to the north and east of the borough provide water gathering grounds for industry, agriculture and drinking water and feed the Rochdale Canal, a historic transport route and also an extensive reservoir network in the uplands and their fringes. These steep sided upland areas which include significant areas of peat also drain into the river valleys where most development is located in the borough. The basis of the drainage infrastructure we have today was shaped and established in the nineteenth century including our sewers and use of the rivers and other waterbodies such as reservoirs, canals, ponds and lodges to collect and manage rain and waste water as required. As our towns and populations have grown, the pressures on drainage infrastructure both ‘natural’ and engineered have grown significantly through increased development and hard surfacing in urban areas and whilst there has been much investment in upgrading and extending drainage infrastructure there is a legacy of ageing infrastructure which cannot cope with the requirements of today and poses a risk to communities through flooding.

Irwell Catchment Flood Risk Management Plan (FMP) 2009

5.2 The Irwell Catchment FMP sets out the scale and extent of flooding both current and anticipated in the future. It includes policies for managing flood risk to help inform planning and decision making regionally and locally to achieve a more sustainable approach to managing flood risk. The FMP includes policies for a series of sub-catchment areas including for maintenance, flood resilience, development and further investigation of risk. This strategy incorporates the key policies and proposals as affect flood risk management in Rochdale borough. An illustration of these fluvial interactions can be seen in the figure 3 map below.

Rochdale Borough’s Strategy for FloodPage Risk Management 92 2013-2023 (Consultation Draft) October 2013 Flood risk management in Rochdale borough P a g e | 12

Figure 3 Irwell Catchment Flood Management Plan overview

Sources of flooding in Rochdale borough and challenges

5.3 Although flood risk in itself is quite widespread in Rochdale borough, the potential significance of that risk varies greatly. Data about how flood risk could impact in terms of its extent and how much hazard it could have (i.e. how deep and fast moving it could be) is updated regularly based on data from flood events, modelling of risk against specific criteria such as duration and amount of rainfall and the impact of flood risk management measures. The most up to date flood outlines and supporting data about how that could affect a location are available through the Environment Agency and the Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA).

Rochdale Borough’s Strategy for FloodPage Risk Management 93 2013-2023 (Consultation Draft) October 2013 Flood risk management in Rochdale borough P a g e | 13

5.4 Flooding events have been recorded over time in Rochdale borough for different types and scales of flooding. In addition the Environment Agency publishes a regularly updated flood risk map for main rivers and will publish a national map for surface water flood risk which at the time of writing is expected by December 2013 or soon after. Rochdale Council, working with all Greater Manchester districts, the Environment Agency and United Utilities has also produced a suite of Strategic Flood Risk Assessments and a Greater Manchester Surface Water Management Plan which highlights priority areas for surface water risk and opportunities for how that could be mitigated.

5.5 The greatest potential for flooding in Rochdale borough and the severity of its impact is focused on a number of key locations where factors such as topography, urban form, hydrology and geology and the capacity of the local drainage infrastructure either individually or in some combination make the incidence of flooding which may be significant, more likely. As part of the upper Irwell catchment, flood risk emanating from the River Roch and its tributaries in particular can increase flood risk pressures downstream. It is important that when managing flood risk through defences, water storage or other measures, the potential impacts and benefits for downstream locations are fully considered as part of a wider catchment approach for the River Irwell.

5.6 Flood risk in Rochdale borough is often not from a single source and many of the locations where flood risk is higher have a combined risk for example from both fluvial and surface water flooding. The main types of flood risk and areas where risk is most significant are outlined below.

Fluvial flooding

5.7 This is flooding caused by rivers and streams which in heavy or prolonged rainfall overtop their banks and flood water spreads outside of the river channel.

5.8 As at September 2013 it is estimated that 958 properties in Rochdale borough are located in areas with a high probability of flooding from rivers i.e. shown on the Environment Agency’s flood map as having a 1% or greater chance of being affected by flooding each year. A further 2119 properties have a likelihood of being affected by flooding with an annual chance of a flood occurring of 0.1%.

5.9 The River Roch and its tributaries present the main fluvial flood risk in Rochdale borough. Many of the main residential and employment locations and town centres are located along the Roch Valley or its tributaries. Whilst flood risk in the Roch Valley is quite extensive along the river valley corridor it is important to ensure that areas of natural flood plain are protected and

Rochdale Borough’s Strategy for FloodPage Risk Management 94 2013-2023 (Consultation Draft) October 2013 Flood risk management in Rochdale borough P a g e | 14

enhanced to continue to perform that role. Particular areas of significant flood risk for residential and business properties are located within the following areas:

 Littleborough (Todmorden Road) to Wardle and Smallbridge which includes the River Roch, Ash Brook, Calder Brook, Ealees Brook, Green Vale Brook and Townhouse Brook;  Milnrow and Newhey – the River Beal;  Central Rochdale – (Albert Royds Street, Belfield and Heybrook to Roch Valley Way, Marland) including the River Roch, River Beal, River Spodden, Buckley Brook; and  Heywood – Millers Brook and Wrigley Brook, in central Heywood and the River Roch at Heap Bridge

5.10 The River Roch at Wardleworth in central Rochdale around Wardleworth and Heybrook and in central Littleborough is also designated as a Flash Flooding Area i.e. where watercourses can rise quickly in response to intense rainfall with peak river flows possible within a few hours. Surface water may also increase the impact of flooding in these areas. This type of flood risk is caused by factors including dense urban layouts and in Littleborough, steep sided water catchments flowing into the settlement in the river valley. Due to the potential for flood risk in these areas to develop over a short space of time with little warning, flood response can be challenging to organise and deploy. An illustration of these fluvial flash flooding warning areas can be seen in Figure 4 below.

5.11 The River Irk and its tributaries to a lesser extent include areas of significant fluvial risk primarily west of Middleton town centre and including Wince Brook.

Fluvial flooding in the Roch Valley, Wardleworth (2012)

Rochdale Borough’s Strategy for FloodPage Risk Management 95 2013-2023 (Consultation Draft) October 2013 Flood risk management in Rochdale borough P a g e | 15

Figure 4 Fluvial flash flooding warning areas in Rochdale borough

Surface water flooding

5.12 This occurs when very intense rainfall occurs over a short period of time and water cannot get into drainage systems quickly enough. Water will in such circumstances flow overland and gather in low spots and hollows. Rivers, reservoirs, canals, sewers and other water bodies can all contribute to surface water flooding.

5.13 The Bury, Rochdale and Oldham Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (2009) identified Critical Drainage Areas (CDA) in Rochdale borough focused on the urban areas of Heywood and Littleborough. CDA’s were identified as areas where surface water risk was established as most widespread and significant and where particular care was needed in assessing the impact of development on surface water flood risk. The most recent assessment of surface water flood risk in Greater Manchester is the GM Surface Water Management Plan (GMSWMP) completed in 2013. Surface water flood risk in Rochdale borough is quite widespread but is also very localised in its impacts and often closely aligned with fluvial flood risk from rivers and other water bodies or are

Rochdale Borough’s Strategy for FloodPage Risk Management 96 2013-2023 (Consultation Draft) October 2013 Flood risk management in Rochdale borough P a g e | 16

locations where ponding can occur due to dips and hollows. The GMSWMP identifies with greater detail than previous assessments where there are more extensive areas of surface water risk, some of which is significant, in Littleborough, central Rochdale, Heywood, Milnrow and Newhey. Different permutations of rainfall, flood depth and speed of flow and other factors have been input into flood risk models which identify the likely extent and effects of surface water flooding under various given circumstances. As an illustration, based on the GM SWMP, a total of 1860 residential properties and a further 1105 non-residential properties in Rochdale borough would potentially be affected by surface water flooding in a storm or rainfall event with an annual probability of 0.5% per year i.e. a 1 in 200 year chance. Different numbers, types and locations of properties will potentially flood under lesser or greater storm events. Based on the most up to date flood risk data available, the Environment Agency will shortly publish a national map of surface water flood risk which is expected to be available during or soon after December 2013. An illustration of the surface water hotspots in Rochdale borough based on the GM SWMP can be seen in Figure 5 below.

Figure 5 Surface water hotspots of Rochdale borough based on GM SWMP

Rochdale Borough’s Strategy for FloodPage Risk Management 97 2013-2023 (Consultation Draft) October 2013 Flood risk management in Rochdale borough P a g e | 17

Groundwater flooding

5.14 Groundwater flooding occurs where water levels in rock and soil are high enough for the water to appear near to or above ground. It can be caused by rainfall either locally or some distance away. Whilst this is uncommon as a type of flooding, limited smaller scale flooding, often of cellars and under floors has occurred. Further work to identify areas where this is a significant source of flood risk will be undertaken by the LLFA working with other risk management agencies. An illustration of areas susceptible to groundwater flooding can be seen in Figure 6 below.

Figure 6 Areas susceptible to groundwater flooding in Rochdale borough

Canal flooding

5.15 The Rochdale Canal runs through a significant part of Rochdale borough on its route between West Yorkshire and Manchester City Centre. As canals have various features which allow for regulation of water flow their flood risk is generally low. Flood risk from the Rochdale Canal is largely from breaches in the canal walls or blockages which occur before measures to manage flow can be taken.

Rochdale Borough’s Strategy for FloodPage Risk Management 98 2013-2023 (Consultation Draft) October 2013 Flood risk management in Rochdale borough P a g e | 18

Reservoir flooding

5.16 Rochdale borough and the wider Pennine uplands encircling much of Greater Manchester contains extensive water gathering grounds and a large number of reservoirs providing drinking water and water for recreation and abstraction for a variety of uses. Whilst water within reservoirs can be regulated, flood risk can arise and the most significant risk is from failure of a reservoir dam for example through a breach in the dam wall. Whilst the likelihood of such an event is low, the flooding consequences from such an event could be significant. There are 56 reservoirs located in and around Greater Manchester where the risk and impacts from flood water that could potentially flow into the conurbation in a flood event such as a breach of the dam is considered to be high. In total more than 120 reservoirs over 25,000m3 could have some effect on Greater Manchester as a result of a flood event. A series of plans and measures are being developed through the Greater Manchester Civil Contingencies and Resilience Unit to ensure an appropriate response is put in place for managing such risk. Rochdale borough includes 14 reservoirs either within the borough or adjoining districts which could flow into its centres of population. Much of the reservoir network is owned and managed by United Utilities who monitor and maintain reservoirs as required to ensure their structural integrity and safety.

Other water bodies

5.17 In addition to watercourses and waterbodies as set out above there are also many ponds, mill lodges and other water features which could contribute to local flood risk for example by over topping or the failure of dam walls and embankments. These are in many different ownerships including Rochdale Council and private owners. In many cases such water bodies may not be subject to regular maintenance or inspection. The Council as LLFA will work with the Environment Agency to ensure that such water bodies are monitored and that owners are made aware of flood risk and the remedial actions needed where this is required.

Sewer flooding

5.18 United Utilities is responsible for flooding from foul, surface water and combined sewers. Flooding from sewers can occur when there is a blockage, collapse or their capacity to pass water is exceeded.

5.19 United Utilities maintain records of properties at risk of flooding from sewerage systems and of reported incidents of flooding both internal to

Rochdale Borough’s Strategy for FloodPage Risk Management 99 2013-2023 (Consultation Draft) October 2013 Flood risk management in Rochdale borough P a g e | 19

properties and where gardens, highways and public open spaces have flooded. For illustration, between September 2012 – September 2013 United Utilities have reacted to 19 reported hydraulic flooding incidents.

5.20 United Utilities has an investment programme which is reviewed and updated in five year cycles called its Asset Management Plan (AMP). The AMP seeks to ensure that investment in its sewerage infrastructure is targeted to where it can achieve best value and most benefit and where opportunities for partnership projects that can reduce pressure on the sewerage infrastructure network can be realised. United Utilities have invested significantly in Rochdale borough and Greater Manchester more widely in improvements to the water environment including reducing the risk to property from flooding. United Utilities have placed priority on Heywood in their investment proposals for the AMP6 period 2015-2020 which will include further investigation of flood risk from the sewerage network to identify proposals for improvements to sewerage infrastructure and exploring other opportunities with the LLFA, Environment Agency and others for sustainable drainage systems which will reduce pressure on specific assets and the wider network. Funding of this work is subject to the final determination of OFWAT, the water services regulation authority.

Improvements to sewer and drainage infrastructure at Park Road, Rochdale (United Utilities 2013)

Rochdale Borough’s Strategy for PageFlood Risk Management100 2013-2023 (Consultation Draft) October 2013 Flood risk management in Rochdale borough P a g e | 20

Influences on future flood risk

5.21 Flood risk is a dynamic issue and its causes, effects and impacts will vary over time based on a range of local and external factors. These include:

 Climate change – long term predicted changes in climate pose the most significant likely change to flood risk. By the 2080’s UK climate projections (UKCP09) suggest there could be around three times as many days in winter with heavy rainfall (more than 25mm in a day). More extreme and intense rainfall events is likely to lead to more frequent and potentially damaging and disruptive flooding. Research into the potential impacts of climate change on a range of environmental concerns such as flood risk is underway including through EcoCities, a joint initiative between the University of Manchester and property company Bruntwood which includes publicly available web based tools to visualise potential climate change hazards and vulnerabilities. An illustration of potential exposure of Rochdale Town Centre to current and future (with climate change) surface water flooding can be seen in Figure 7 below;

Figure 7 Illustration of potential exposure of Rochdale town centre to current and future (with climate change) surface water flooding (EcoCities project)

Source: Carter and Kazmierczak 2013

 Investment in flood risk management infrastructure – on-going investment in assets that will increase drainage capacity and flood water storage, upgrade ageing sewer and drainage infrastructure and invest in new or enhanced sustainable drainage systems will help reduce the incidence and impact of flood risk in many cases.

Rochdale Borough’s Strategy for FloodPage Risk Management 101 2013-2023 (Consultation Draft) October 2013 Flood risk management in Rochdale borough P a g e | 21

Investment is a long term and often expensive process potentially involving many partners and as such needs to be effectively planned, targeted and co-ordinated;  Development and urban change – development and related infrastructure such as roads and the increase in hard urban environments can increase flood risk both locally and downstream. However, well designed and located development which for example incorporates Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) and does not compromise flood plains can help reduce and effectively manage flood risk. Smaller scale activities by individuals for example loss of green spaces such as gardens to drives and other hard non- permeable surfaces can bring a cumulative increase in flood risk within a neighbourhood. The operation of SuDS Approval Bodies will increase sustainable drainage assets and ensure they remain managed and fit for purpose through enforcement and adoption of approved schemes where required under legislation;  The South Pennines Watershed - includes extensive areas of peat which helps to retain and control water. Threats to peat include climate change and changes in land management which could affect upland drainage and vegetation. Whilst some peat is deep and in good condition other areas are deteriorating and require improvement to safeguard their future well-being. Potential upland management activities concerning drainage have the potential to limit water run off to urban areas but may also have impacts on ecology, water catchment and soil management which need to be fully understood and incorporated into management activities;  Trees and woodland - loss of trees and woodland reduces the ability of land to retain and manage water. Activities which safeguard and increase tree planting in the countryside and also within urban areas can have a positive impact on retaining and managing water flows from agricultural land and built development and help to maintain or improve soil quality;  Changes in agricultural practices – changes to how land is used and managed which affects drainage and run off from agricultural land can increase flows into watercourses and also increase surface water risk in nearby areas. Changes in land management should take account of the impact on drainage and what can be done to reduce flood risk on site and in neighbouring or downstream areas;  Watercourse management by riparian owners – People or organisations which own land alongside a river or other watercourse are also a riparian owner. Riparian ownership includes responsibilities for maintaining river banks and beds, allowing free flow of water and control of invasive plant species. Flood risk can be caused or made worse by blockages caused by trees and vegetation, fly tipping and other materials which can accumulate and restrict water flows. Land owners can also carry out work to watercourses such as creating dams

Rochdale Borough’s Strategy for PageFlood Risk Management102 2013-2023 (Consultation Draft) October 2013 Flood risk management in Rochdale borough P a g e | 22

and pools which can affect flood risk. Whilst gaining consent for works which could affect flood risk management and taking enforcement action against unauthorised works will help reduce such risks, greater vigilance and involvement from local communities will assist in ensuring problems are addressed early and more effectively; and  Greater awareness and acceptance of risk - Increased property and business resilience will help limit the impact and damage caused by flood events. Although not in itself reducing risk, increased use of flood resilience measures in areas of high risk and improved property maintenance and good practice can substantially increase public safety and levels of property protection which will limit damage and disruption and ensure that flood recovery is quicker and less expensive. Work with local businesses to increase the resilience of our local economy to disruption from flood risk, can include devising specific flood plans for business continuity, staff training and site management measures for example around waste disposal, storage and building and property features and maintenance.

Surface water flooding at Belfield Road, Rochdale

Rochdale Borough’s Strategy for FloodPage Risk Management 103 2013-2023 (Consultation Draft) October 2013 Local Plans and Strategies P a g e | 23

6 Local plans and strategies

6.1 Greater Manchester has set out a vision to make Greater Manchester distinctive and a place that people want to invest in bringing economic growth, jobs and prosperity. The ambition for growth is based on a sustainable low carbon vision where Greater Manchester is also more resilient to climate change impacts and has a high quality environment. The Greater Manchester Strategy (2013- 2020) is the key document setting out this vision and how it will be delivered. Supporting the Greater Manchester Strategy there are a series of environmental strategies and key approaches to sustainable development including the Greater Manchester Climate Change Strategy (2011 -2020) which will help to deliver the transition to a low carbon economy and increase preparedness for a changing climate. A strategic approach to Green Infrastructure is also being developed recognising the role the river valleys and other strategic networks of green spaces and water bodies have in providing environmental services such as flood risk management for the whole of Greater Manchester. Rochdale borough’s flood risk management strategy will play its part in delivering a more resilient economy and communities for Greater Manchester where people want to live, work, visit and invest in.

6.2 Rochdale borough’s local flood risk management strategy in addition to being consistent with and helping to deliver national, regional and Greater Manchester plans and strategies for flood risk management also seeks to ensure that flood risk is properly recognised and better flood risk management delivered in a range of local plans and strategies for the benefit of communities, the local economy and environment. These include:

 Pride of Place – Rochdale Borough Sustainable Community Strategy 2011-2021 - this strategy sets out a series of objectives for improving people’s lives, a prosperous, ambitious and entrepreneurial borough and to create places where people choose to be;  Rochdale Renaissance Borough Masterplan (2010) - the Borough Masterplan sets out a framework for transformation and includes a vision of providing an attractive and distinctive location for economic investment and in which to live. Its objectives include investment in town centres, employment and neighbourhoods and include a commitment to capitalise on the borough’s environmental assets as part of the borough’s identity and to provide part of its economic offer supporting tourism and sustainable growth;  Rochdale borough’s Core Strategy is the Council’s plan on how the borough should grow and develop to 2028. It shows the scale of employment and housing land needed and identifies where regeneration and environmental improvements should be focused. It also looks at what transport and other services are needed to support growth and development. The Core Strategy includes policies consistent with the

Rochdale Borough’s Strategy for PageFlood Risk Management104 2013-2023 (Consultation Draft) October 2013 Local Plans and Strategies P a g e | 24

National Planning Policy Framework to ensure that development does not increase flood risk, is appropriately located and contributes to sustainable drainage. The Core Strategy and its policies will also help inform documents such as the Land Allocations Development Plan Document which will set out more detail of development locations in the borough and will be supported by a Supplementary Planning Document providing further advice about flood risk in Rochdale borough to help interpretation and delivery of the Core Strategy and its delivery. At the time of writing, subject to the outcome of an Examination in Public, it is proposed to adopt the Council’s Core Strategy by early 2014;  Rochdale borough Green Infrastructure Strategy – Scheduled for completion by summer 2014, the strategy will provide a strategic overview of green infrastructure in the borough and the Council’s objectives for protecting, enhancing and creating green infrastructure assets and networks. Green infrastructure includes all green spaces and water bodies which provide environmental services for the local community and economy and for the wider South Pennines and Greater Manchester including biodiversity, sustainable drainage and recreational use. Delivering more extensive and effective flood risk management is one of the primary objectives for the boroughs green infrastructure strategy both in terms of storing and managing water in rural locations and providing sustainable drainage systems within urban areas. A series of Green Infrastructure Plans for each of the borough’s Townships has been produced setting out objectives for delivering green infrastructure priorities including flood risk management; and  Pennine Edge Forest Action Plan (2011-2015) – the Pennine Edge Forest is the community forest for eastern Greater Manchester covering the districts of Rochdale, Oldham, Stockport and Tameside. The forest partners and its Action Plan set out objectives for maximising the role of trees and woodlands in managing flood risk including as a part of more sustainable urban drainage and in rural areas to help reduce the extent of surface water run-off and limit the flow of water into the rivers and urban areas. The Forest actively promotes community action and participation which includes good environmental stewardship in river valleys which can help manage flood risk for example through reduced fly tipping and increased tree planting.

Rochdale Borough’s Strategy for FloodPage Risk Management 105 2013-2023 (Consultation Draft) October 2013 Working together P a g e | 25

7 Working together

7.1 Effective flood risk management requires working with a wide range of partners and across district boundaries. Working together on delivering good flood risk management is needed at all scales from local people and neighbourhoods to other flood risk management and environmental organisations and partnerships.

7.2 The cause and effects of flooding can be geographically separate and understanding risk and developing measures to manage and reduce flood risk may require a more strategic catchment scale approach to their planning, funding and delivery, often involving many partners. Without such an approach we may simply move or worsen flood risk downstream. In addition we want flood risk management to provide a range of benefits for people and places including a greener environment with reduced pollution, more wildlife and opportunities for leisure. This again provides opportunities for working in partnership with local communities, the voluntary sector, landowners and environmental partnerships.

7.3 The North West Regional Flood and Coastal Committee (RFCC) is a statutory body which provides the vehicle for planning and managing the delivery of flood risk management priorities and investment in the North West. It brings together the Environment Agency and local government and manages investment programmes for flood risk management through Flood Risk Grant in Aid and the Local Levy raised from local government towards flood risk management activities. Greater Manchester districts are represented on the governance structures for the RFCC.

7.4 In Greater Manchester, the Association of Greater Manchester Authorities (AGMA) and the Greater Manchester Combined Authority enable strategic collaboration between the ten districts of Greater Manchester and key partners seeking to deliver a stronger, low carbon economy and more attractive and sustainable places to live in and visit. Flood risk management plays an important part in delivering this ambition.

7.5 To ensure that flood risk management is planned and delivered strategically where required a Greater Manchester Flood and Water Management Board has been established. The Board provides representation to the RFCC and includes each of the ten Greater Manchester districts, Environment Agency, United Utilities and brings together spatial planning, drainage engineering, civil contingencies and climate change and sustainability leads for Greater Manchester. The Board oversees and directs delivery of strategic flood risk management priorities in Greater Manchester which includes ensuring that statutory duties are delivered, data and evidence is up to date, shared

Rochdale Borough’s Strategy for PageFlood Risk Management106 2013-2023 (Consultation Draft) October 2013 Working together P a g e | 26

appropriately and co-ordinated and investment is well planned and targeted. The Board is supported by a Flood Risk Officers Group which enables joint working and co-operation on technical issues, delivering statutory duties, and project delivery. So that links with related issues such as economic development, tackling climate change and managing and enhancing the natural environment are strong, the Board and supporting officers group maintains relationships with other relevant strategic bodies including the Greater Manchester Local Nature Partnership and Local Economic Partnership.

7.6 At a local scale, a Flood Risk Management Steering Group has been established for Rochdale district led by the Lead Local Flood Authority (LFFA) and including the Environment Agency, United Utilities and a range of Greater Manchester and local authority services including spatial planning, highways and drainage engineering, economic development, civil contingencies and housing. The steering group will help develop, manage and review the work programme for delivering this Flood Risk Management Strategy and ensuring it is properly embedded in and delivered through a range of policies, plans and projects including development management, land and green space management, highways and drainage infrastructure and community engagement. An illustration of the governance arrangements for flood risk management in North West England can be seen in Figure 8.

7.7 Over time it is hoped that communities and local land management interests will play a more active part in local flood risk management governance structures through local flood forums and action groups which may be established in areas of significant flood risk. The LLFA working with the National Flood Forum will support such opportunities where they would be appropriate and there is local interest and will seek to raise awareness of flood risk and ways in which communities and businesses can participate in managing and reducing those local flood risks. This objective is being piloted through the Rochdale Flood Resilience Community Pathfinder working with communities in Wardleworth and Heywood.

7.8 Our key partners and stakeholders for flood risk management in Rochdale district are:

 Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra);  Regional Flood and Coastal Committee;  Environment Agency;  United Utilities;  The Association of Greater Manchester Authorities and Greater Manchester Combined Authority;  Adjacent Lead Local Flood Authorities in Lancashire and West Yorkshire with drainage and water catchment links to Rochdale district including Rossendale Borough Council, Lancashire County Council, Calderdale Borough Council;

Rochdale Borough’s Strategy for FloodPage Risk Management 107 2013-2023 (Consultation Draft) October 2013 Working together P a g e | 27

 Emergency response services;  Canal and River Trust;  Pennine Edge Forest;  Pennine Prospects;  Voluntary sector organisations including National Flood Forum, Groundwork Oldham and Rochdale;  Local communities and businesses; and  Developers and land managers.

Figure 8 Governance arrangements for flood risk management in the North West England

*Regional policy, investment and oversight Regional Flood and Coastal Committee

North West Sub regional Partnerships - Cheshire, Merseyside, *Strategic oversight, policy and Lancashire, investment planning for GM. Cumbria *Partnership structure for intergrated managment and AGMA / Greater delivery - planning, drainage, Manchester and civil contingencies. Combined Authority *Establishing and managing common standards and technical support resources.

*Local delivery of flood risk management duties and powers. * Managing local approvals and GM Lead Local enforcement processes for Flood Authorities sustainable drainage. *Delivering local programmes for drainage asset managment, improvement and public preparedness working with other risk managers.

Rochdale Borough’s Strategy for PageFlood Risk Management108 2013-2023 (Consultation Draft) October 2013 Managing Rochdale Council’s Flood Risk Management Assets P a g e | 28

8 Managing Rochdale Council’s flood risk management assets

8.1 Rochdale Council manages a number of assets either as land owner, riparian owner or as Highway Authority which form part of our flood risk management infrastructure. These include:

 Structures – including bridges, culverts, walls, drains and weirs;  Land – including open spaces, water bodies and flood plain which contribute to existing or potential areas of land for sustainable drainage such as water storage; and  Highways – including gulleys and drains.

8.2 The Council through the Highway Authority and Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) function maintains a register of structures with a significant role in flood risk management and will adopt a programme of inspections to ensure that they are appropriately maintained and where required repair and improvement to secure and extend the lifespan of assets is included in future capital investment programmes and asset management plans. Particular risks for flood risk management include blockages, structural collapse for example culverts or dam walls, and where channels and drains have insufficient capacity to cope with potential flood water volumes. The Council will focus particular effort in areas of significant flood risk and on assets which pose a greater risk of failure through deterioration, breach or collapse, inadequate capacity or potential for blockages.

8.3 The LLFA will also monitor and ensure that privately owned structures and features significant for flood risk management are appropriately maintained and managed working where appropriate with the Environment Agency i.e. on Main Rivers and for larger reservoirs and water bodies subject to regulation under the Reservoirs Act 1975. Many owners are unaware of their responsibilities for flood risk management or in some cases may not know that they are the owner of particular structures for example as a riparian owner. The Council will consider which privately owned assets should be listed on its register of flood risk management assets and ensure that owners and managers are aware of their duties and responsibilities and what is required in terms of appropriate management and maintenance. Where necessary the LLFA will consider whether assets which provide protection against significant flood risk should be designated under powers provided through the Flood and Water Management Act 2010.

8.4 The LLFA will also ensure that activities which may impact on flood risk management on Ordinary watercourses is subject to an application for consent and appropriate conditions for approval. Where unauthorised works are carried out, the LLFA will carry out enforcement works to ensure that works are

Rochdale Borough’s Strategy for FloodPage Risk Management 109 2013-2023 (Consultation Draft) October 2013 Managing Rochdale Council’s Flood Risk Management Assets P a g e | 29

removed or where consent is subsequently given that they are compliant with any conditions imposed.

Flood risk in Rochdale Town Centre increased by floating debris (2008)

Rochdale Borough’s Strategy for PageFlood Risk Management110 2013-2023 (Consultation Draft) October 2013 Development and sustainable drainage Page | 30

9 Development and sustainable drainage

9.1 Spatial planning aims to ensure development is sustainable and delivers social, economic and environmental benefits. Spatial planning whilst promoting development must also ensure the appropriate safeguarding and protection of the natural environment including agricultural land, biodiversity and land which helps to manage and protect our communities from current and future environmental risks such as those from climate change which includes for example our natural flood plains and other land which is important for managing current or future flood risks.

9.2 One of the principal influences on flood risk is the impact of development. Development which is poorly located and designed may result in significant flood risk for its occupants or users and also significant disruption to its use e.g. for habitation or for work. There may also be downstream impacts. Development can also contribute to improved drainage and flood risk management where it is well located and incorporates or provides appropriate flood risk management measures based on a robust flood risk assessment. It is important that early advice is sought through the Local Planning Authority, the Environment Agency and others to help inform the location and design of development through pre-application discussions and use of available flood risk data which will inform more detailed site assessments, site selection and design.

9.3 Rochdale borough’s Core Strategy recognises the importance of good flood risk management and has taken account of existing studies for fluvial and surface water flooding and national planning policy in its production. The impact of flood risk in future Development Plan Documents such as relating to allocating land for categories of use will also take full account of flood risk management matters in terms of risk and also opportunities to better manage that risk in the future for example through flood water storage or other sustainable drainage measures. The Council will produce a Supplementary Planning Document setting out the Council’s planning approach to flood risk management and the role of the Local Flood Risk Management Strategy in delivering sustainable development and land use.

9.4 At the time of writing, guidance to support the establishment of a new system for managing surface water through sustainable drainage systems by April 2014 is awaited. The Flood and Water Management Act 2010 requires the establishment of a Sustainable Drainage Approval Body (SAB) which will receive applications for sustainable drainage proposals that require approval. This is a separate process from existing planning and building control approval processes but will need to relate to the timescales of these processes where

Rochdale Borough’s Strategy for FloodPage Risk Management 111 2013-2023 (Consultation Draft) October 2013 Development and sustainable drainage Page | 31

appropriate as SAB approval will be required prior to development being able to commence.

9.5 Sustainable drainage systems can include one or more of the following:

 permeable surfaces which allow water to infiltrate the ground or into underground drainage;  drainage ditches such as swales;  temporary storage basins which can be specific or have multiple open space functions outside of a flood event;  ponds; and  wetlands

9.6 Sustainable drainage systems can help to manage pollution and also provide opportunities for biodiversity. Sustainable drainage systems can also provide opportunities to store and re-use water for a range of purposes for which ‘grey’ water is appropriate. It is important to ensure that appropriate sustainable drainage approaches are introduced based on proper consideration of factors such as geology, previous land use and ground contamination so that drainage will be effective and not increase risks of contamination. This should include seeking appropriate early advice and carrying out site investigations where required.

Rochdale Borough’s Strategy for PageFlood Risk Management112 2013-2023 (Consultation Draft) October 2013 Protecting and improving our environment P a g e | 32

10 Protecting and improving our environment

10.1 Flood risk management is one of the ways by which we can help deliver the requirements of the Water Framework Directive (WFD) for sustainable water management including its protection, improvement and usage.

10.2 It is important to ensure that measures for flood risk management do not have an adverse effect on biodiversity, soils and geodiversity, pollution control and water quality for example by altering drainage and water supply which could impact on land and water bodies with specific biodiversity interest or which would increase the risk of pollution or erosion. Many flood risk management activities have the potential to protect and increase biodiversity and improve water quality through de-culverting, creation of new habitats, tree planting and a range of other measures. The Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) will work with the Environment Agency to ensure that all of its actions are compliant with the requirements of the WFD through avoiding deterioration to water bodies and both delivering improvements and creating and safeguarding opportunities for future beneficial actions.

10.3 Many of our rivers and other water bodies such as mill lodges and ponds are an important part of our townscape and rural landscape heritage often providing visual evidence of the industrial and agricultural past in our borough. Many features and structures such as bridges, lock gates and other features have an important role in water body management and can also have historic and architectural value, in some cases being statutorily or locally listed as being of historic or architectural importance. In designing and carrying out flood risk management proposals the impact on landscape and townscape heritage and specific heritage features will be given full consideration to ensure that such features and their setting are conserved and wherever possible enhanced.

10.4 The Environment Agency working with a wide group of stakeholders has established a catchment partnership ‘Rivers Return’ for the Irwell from the South Pennine uplands into the core of Manchester and Salford to help highlight Water Framework Directive priorities and ways in which failing or deteriorating watercourses can be turned around and improved to meet WFD objectives. Rochdale Council is a partner in this initiative and supports its objectives and delivery through a range of environmental actions including flood risk management proposals around the Rivers Roch and Irk and their key tributaries.

10.5 The LLFA will also ensure that flood risk management activities help to protect and enhance biodiversity in the borough and areas outside the borough where our activities could impact on species and habitats. These include:

Rochdale Borough’s Strategy for FloodPage Risk Management 113 2013-2023 (Consultation Draft) October 2013 Protecting and improving our environment P a g e | 33

 Natura 2000 sites including the South Pennine Moors Special Area of Conservation (SAC) and Special Protection Area (SPA) and the Rochdale Canal SAC where avoidance of damaging impacts will be a priority;  Sites of Special Scientific Interest – the South Pennine Moors and Rochdale Canal;  Local Nature Reserves – currently located at Alkrington Woods, Healey Dell and Hopwood Woods;  Sites of Biological Importance; and  Species protected by law and their habitats.

10.6 An illustration of designated nature conservation sites can be seen in Figure 9 below.

Figure 9 Designated nature conservation sites within Rochdale borough (2013)

10.7 Rochdale Council has prepared a series of Green Infrastructure Plans for each of the borough’s Townships which together will help to deliver the borough Green Infrastructure Strategy. These plans will help to identify where flood risk management actions can achieve multiple benefits for example biodiversity or improved recreational opportunities. The Pennine Edge Forest Action Plan also includes objectives for promoting and delivering tree and woodland planting and management activities in the borough’s river valleys and areas where surface water risk is greatest.

Rochdale Borough’s Strategy for PageFlood Risk Management114 2013-2023 (Consultation Draft) October 2013 Protecting and improving our environment P a g e | 34

10.8 A proposal to establish a Roch Valley River Park from the South Pennine watershed above Littleborough to Heywood has been developed by the Council supported by a wide stakeholder partnership including the Environment Agency, Natural England, the Forestry Commission, the Pennine Edge Forest, Pennine Prospects and a range of community groups and interests active in seeking to improve the Roch Valley. The River Park project includes proposals for:

 A linear Roch Valley trail and connecting routes;  Enhancing biodiversity corridors and sites of interest based on a biodiversity enhancement framework;  Opportunities for woodland creation and management;  Opportunities to enhance the natural character and quality of the river and its landscape through removal of culverts and weirs in appropriate locations;  Improved flood defences, flood water storage and sustainable drainage systems; and  Increasing local community participation in stewardship of the river valley environment.

10.9 An illustration of the Roch Valley River Park indicative boundary can be seen in Figure 10 below.

Figure 10 Roch Valley River Park indicative boundary

Rochdale Borough’s Strategy for FloodPage Risk Management 115 2013-2023 (Consultation Draft) October 2013 Civil contingencies and resilience P a g e | 35

11 Civil contingencies and resilience

11.1 Flooding is one of the main risks to communities and business continuity in Greater Manchester. The Greater Manchester Civil Contingencies and Resilience Unit (CCRU) works with all Greater Manchester local authorities, emergency services and key partners such as the Environment Agency and United Utilities to ensure that organisations, people and places are well prepared for an event such as flooding and that appropriate response and recovery plans are in place. The CCRU maintain the Greater Manchester Community Risk Register which lists a range of flood events amongst the key risks to Greater Manchester which in Rochdale district include flooding from the River Roch, surface water and a number of reservoirs.

11.2 Duties on local authorities and other front line responders are set out in the Civil Contingencies Act 2004. Duties include co-operation and sharing data, risk assessment and maintaining public awareness to warn and inform communities during times of emergency. Flood risk assessment such as provided by the Environment Agency and Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) are hugely important in helping to determine where risk is highest and the emergency plans that should be in place to manage and respond to that risk for example in flash flooding areas of high surface water flood risk. The work carried out by the Environment Agency, LLFA and others to engage with communities raising awareness and increasing preparedness is also of great importance to ensure that wherever possible risk is reduced in communities and that communities are better prepared to respond to and recover from flooding. A Multi Agency Flood Plan has been produced which sets out the response measures that will be activated in a flood risk emergency event including support for vulnerable people and the roles of key response organisations.

11.3 The LLFA will work closely with the CCRU, Environment Agency and emergency services to ensure flood risk assessment data and reports of flood event investigations are shared effectively and will help to target communities and properties at significant risk of flooding. The LLFA will also work with CCRU to increase awareness and preparedness through work with the Environment Agency and the National Flood Forum including through the Rochdale borough Flood Resilience Community Pathfinder.

Rochdale Borough’s Strategy for PageFlood Risk Management116 2013-2023 (Consultation Draft) October 2013 Civil contingencies and resilience P a g e | 36

Flash flooding at Wilton Grove, Heywood (2004)

Rochdale Borough’s Strategy for FloodPage Risk Management 117 2013-2023 (Consultation Draft) October 2013 Priorities for the Lead Local Flood Authority P a g e | 37

12 Priorities for the Lead Local Flood Authority

12.1 Rochdale Council as a Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) has a series of key priorities for flood risk management to ensure its key objectives are delivered, challenges are effectively met and that opportunities to deliver positive change for all of our residents and businesses are maximised. Flood risk cannot be fully eliminated from our borough but we can manage that risk better and reduce its impact in many areas where the effects of flooding could be significant. The LLFA will take a proactive and inclusive approach to managing flood risk and will support innovation and partnership approaches to ensure resources are well targeted and that ownership of better flood risk management is widened. An illustration of managing flood risk can be seen in Figure 11.

12.2 The guiding principles underpinning our approach are:

 Consistency with national strategy and other local plans and strategies;  Working together with people and organisations in an inclusive, well co- ordinated approach to addressing and managing flood risk;  A whole catchment approach ensuring risk is not transferred or increased elsewhere and that effective measures can be delivered;  Maximising economic, environmental and social benefits;  Delivering sustainable solutions which meet the needs of all communities at risk of flooding including the most vulnerable members of our communities;  Flood risk management should be proportionate, well targeted and represent good value for money; and  Encouraging and securing a wide range of investment in flood risk management from risk management authorities and beneficiaries.

Rochdale Borough’s Strategy for PageFlood Risk Management118 2013-2023 (Consultation Draft) October 2013 Priorities for the Lead Local Flood Authority P a g e | 38

Figure 11 Managing the risk of flooding

Understand the risks

Improve flood prediction, Manage the warning and Flood and likelihood post-flood Coastal recovery Erosion Risk Management

Prevent Help people to inappropriate manage their development own risk

12.3 Key challenges for flood risk management in Rochdale borough include:

Widening ownership and awareness of flood risk management in affected communities.

12.4 Flood risk is often accepted more by people who have experienced a flood in their personal lives such as the damage and disruption to their property and the surrounding community. For many who have not experienced flooding, it is difficult for them in some cases to identify with increasing data and evidence which may suggest that the probability they could experience a damaging flood is high. There is also a stigma attached to flood risk based on the concern about the effect on property values and sales, potentially higher insurance premiums or in more extreme cases the inability to get affordable insurance. It is possibly the case that many flooding incidents go unreported.

12.5 It is a priority to encourage people to report flooding when and where it occurs and to provide a simple and straightforward approach for doing this. Only by more complete awareness of where and when flooding occurs can risk management authorities more fully understand its causes and what can be done to better protect properties and communities.

12.6 It is important to make people more aware of their flood risk and its meaning for them i.e. their property and community and their lives. In many cases often simple steps can reduce the risk to property and where communities band together to help address their flood risk their resilience to flooding and its impacts can dramatically increase. The National Flood Forum provide advice on property level resilience and the University of Manchester has recently published a guide to property level flood residence based on six steps that property owners can take to reduce their risk (see paragraph 17.7).

Rochdale Borough’s Strategy for FloodPage Risk Management 119 2013-2023 (Consultation Draft) October 2013 Priorities for the Lead Local Flood Authority P a g e | 39

12.7 In raising awareness and ownership of flood risk it is important to understand that communities are diverse and one approach alone will not always be sufficient. The message should be one that everyone can understand on their own terms and one which gets to more vulnerable or harder to reach members of the community due to age, mobility or language and those with an interest in the community such as property landlords and others who may not live in the communities at risk. The Council will work with the National Flood Forum and other partners to develop a range of awareness and engagement activities and materials which will help us to reach all parts of our local community more effectively.

Areas with significant flood risk are in many cases amongst the most socially and economically disadvantaged in the North West and England.

12.8 In Rochdale borough, there is a high co-incidence of communities at high risk of flooding who are also amongst the most deprived in both the North West of England in particular parts of inner Rochdale and Heywood. For an illustrative map of this relationship see Appendix 2. The challenges for flood risk management include a potential lack of disposable income to invest in property maintenance and flood protection measures that could limit the impact of a flood event on their property. There may also be a greater impact of the cost of appropriate home insurance and its affordability and therefore the ability to repair property and replace possessions as part of a post flood recovery. There is also a high incidence of elderly people and people with health or mobility problems who may require additional help and support in a flood event to ensure they and their property are safe for example where flood protection needs to be put in place.

12.9 Rochdale Council is working with communities in Inner Rochdale (Wardleworth) and Heywood as part of its Flood Resilience Community Pathfinder project with the National Flood Forum and other partners to build their capacity to make positive changes and help them prepare and deliver local community flood risk action plans which will seek to identify local challenges in more detail and identify how to address them more effectively. Opportunities to extend this approach in Rochdale borough will be taken where resources allow.

Improving our understanding of flood risk, where it happens and its causes and the likely future pressures from our changing climate.

12.10 Data and key evidence to tell us more about flood risk, why and where it could happen and what its affect could be is constantly improving so that risk management authorities and communities can plan better to help manage or reduce it more effectively. The Environment Agency has a continual process of updating its data and assessment of risk from rivers and other water bodies and through the Agency, Rochdale Council, United Utilities and others there is also

Rochdale Borough’s Strategy for PageFlood Risk Management120 2013-2023 (Consultation Draft) October 2013 Priorities for the Lead Local Flood Authority P a g e | 40

on-going investment into the investigation of local risk from surface water, local watercourses, sewerage networks and reservoirs and how this can be reduced or better managed. Reports from flood events can also provide important intelligence about causes of flooding at particular locations and what can be done to prevent or reduce future risk. It is therefore important to ensure that all reported incidents are investigated to an appropriate level and any results shared as necessary. Greater Manchester’s agreed procedure for investigating reported flood events from surface water and waterbodies is included as Appendix 1.

12.11 Factors affecting flood risk can be influenced by a number of issues including patterns and types of development, the condition of drainage infrastructure and land management and as such there is a need to review and extend our knowledge of risk as part of an on-going process. The impact of climate change is as yet not fully understood but it is clear that more unpredictable and extreme weather events will significantly affect flood risk and an allowance has been made in forecasting future flood risk and its potential impacts. The impacts of climate change on local flood risk will form part of an on-going review of data by the LLFA and other risk management authorities.

Managing, protecting and enhancing our flood risk management infrastructure for the future.

12.12 Although there is significant investment in our drainage infrastructure including that for the sewerage and highways network, there is still a legacy of ageing assets or assets which do not have the capacity to deal with current flood risk from for example surface and foul water. Better understanding of flood risk from current and future investigation and assessment work will help to provide evidence for increased resources and better targeting of priorities but investment may be over many years due to cost which can be high. Use of Flood Defence Grant in Aid, partnership between risk management authorities and the role of development in providing enhancement of flood risk management infrastructure can help to maximise available opportunities for investment.

12.13 In addition to more traditional approaches to conveying and storing flood water, sustainable drainage based on green infrastructure may provide increasing opportunities for reducing pressure on drainage and sewerage systems and extending the capacity for flood risk management. In addition to the natural flood plain for rivers, the location of appropriate green infrastructure which could include specifically designed green spaces and water bodies or enhancing existing green spaces and water bodies to act as a sustainable drainage resource in times of flood is important. It is also important to ensure they are appropriately protected from inappropriate development and suitably managed for that purpose.

Rochdale Borough’s Strategy for FloodPage Risk Management 121 2013-2023 (Consultation Draft) October 2013 Priorities for the Lead Local Flood Authority P a g e | 41

Reducing flood risk in our urban areas whilst also promoting and delivering essential growth and regeneration.

12.14 It is important to ensure our urban areas continue to provide the houses, businesses and services we need for a prosperous and dynamic borough. Understanding flood risk will help decision making about where to develop and what would be appropriate so that development does not compromise or reduce key flood risk assets for example existing drainage infrastructure, functioning flood plain or green spaces and water bodies important to local flood risk management. Development should be safe for its lifetime but also not lead to increased flood risk locally or further downstream. Development where it is well planned can provide real benefits for flood risk management through good design and investment in new or existing drainage infrastructure.

Managing and reducing flood risk whilst also helping to protect and improve the ecology of our water environment and to make it cleaner and accessible for leisure, sport and quiet enjoyment.

12.15 When planning and delivering flood risk management it is important to recognise the wider role that the water environment has within our local communities and also our regional and national environmental infrastructure. It is important to ensure that ecology and water quality are not compromised and wherever possible enhanced. It is also important to ensure that uses of water bodies and their wider environment such as for angling, water sports, walking and more active pursuits are taken into account in how flood risk management is planned, delivered and managed for the future so that it provides a sustainable, safe and enjoyable environment with a wide range of public benefits wherever possible.

Flooding can have disruptive effects on local businesses and the borough’s economy

Rochdale Borough’s Strategy for PageFlood Risk Management122 2013-2023 (Consultation Draft) October 2013 Delivering our strategic objectives P a g e | 42

13 Delivering our strategic objectives

13.1 Rochdale borough’s flood risk management strategy will underpin its approach to delivering the role of Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) including working with communities at risk of flooding and all organisations that have a role in managing and reducing flood risk. Flood risk is dynamic and how our towns and countryside are managed can influence the extent and severity of risk in addition to our changing climate.

13.2 Our approach will consist of a series of longer term investments and partnership projects and on-going activities around maintaining drainage assets, improving awareness of flood risk in communities and engaging with local residents and businesses to increase local resilience. Opportunities to address flood risk and its consequences are a mixture of major infrastructure projects with a range of parties involved requiring detailed investigation, and advance planning, on-going maintenance and engagement projects and ‘quick wins’ for small projects where funding or an urgent need is found.

13.3 Detailed proposals to manage flood risk will be published separately to this strategy as a series of short, medium and long term projects delivered by all relevant Risk Management Authorities individually and in partnership and reviewed annually based on the availability of funding or changing patterns of flood risk priorities.

13.4 Understand our flood risks better

13.5 The LLFA will:

 Ensure that its flood risk management activities are based on the most up to date available data from national, regional and local data sources;  Work with other Risk Management Authorities to ensure that all sources of risk (including from rivers and other water bodies, surface water and the sewer network) and how the causes, impacts and solutions interact are understood and incorporated into flood risk management activities and future planning;  Work with the Environment Agency and other Greater Manchester LLFA’s to prepare risk and hazard mapping and a Local Flood Risk Action Plan for the Greater Manchester Flood Risk Area which meets the requirements of the Flood Risk Regulations 2009 by 2015;  Using the GM Surface Water Management Plan and best locally available data, identify locations where further investigation of flood risk from surface water, groundwater and Ordinary watercourses in areas of significant flood risk is required, working with the Environment Agency

Rochdale Borough’s Strategy for FloodPage Risk Management 123 2013-2023 (Consultation Draft) October 2013 Delivering our strategic objectives P a g e | 43

and United Utilities and others as appropriate to develop deliverable measures to manage or reduce flood risks;  Carry out an assessment of the highway drainage system under its management to understand where risk is highest and to identify maintenance and improvement priorities where required;  Identify and assess where appropriate privately owned assets which have a significant flood risk management value and ensure that their function is appropriately safeguarded;  Ensure that appropriate investigation of all reported flood events is carried out and the results of any investigation shared as necessary with relevant Risk Management Authorities and published where it is a significant flood event (involving more than 5 residential properties with internal flooding to the main dwelling); and  Support and facilitate data sharing between Risk Management Authorities and emergency services and responders to encourage a more joined up and comprehensive approach to flood risk management;

Communicate flood risks more effectively with those who are potentially at risk from flooding and with those who can help manage and respond to flood risk and its consequences

13.6 The LLFA will:

 Work with the Environment Agency, United Utilities, Greater Manchester Civil Contingencies and Resilience Unit and the National Flood Forum to provide appropriate and well co-ordinated support for communities and businesses at risk of flooding, especially in locations where risk is higher. This will include flood alert and warning initiatives, information road shows and providing information and activities to promote and enable improved understanding, preparedness and flood resilience;  Develop targeted activities for harder to reach members of our local communities so as to make flood risk management inclusive for all of our residents and visitors;  Working with partners to establish specific activities to encourage greater flood risk awareness for children and young people and promote flood resilience in the home through cross generational learning;  Maintain an up to date public register of assets which have a significant flood risk management value in the borough;  Provide accessible, up to date and easily understood data about flood risk in Rochdale borough which is well co-ordinated with other sources of data such as the Environment Agency and other Greater Manchester LLFAs; and  Use the Rochdale Flood Resilience Community Pathfinder to develop good practice engagement and communication tools to use across the borough as a whole.

Rochdale Borough’s Strategy for PageFlood Risk Management124 2013-2023 (Consultation Draft) October 2013 Delivering our strategic objectives P a g e | 44

Help people, communities and businesses to take greater ownership of flood risk where they can manage and where possible reduce their risk and be better prepared to respond to and recover from flood events

13.7 The LLFA will:

 Work with the National Flood Forum and Risk Management Authorities to encourage and support communities in working together to take greater ownership of their flood risk and take a more active part in its management;  Provide training and support to build capacity and capability in local communities and businesses to manage their flood risks and business continuity more effectively;  Encourage greater take up of flood alert and warning schemes and identify ways for establishing and strengthening working relationships with all risk management authorities and emergency services;  Engage with children and young people through education and participation activities to help ensure improved flood risk awareness and resilience in future generations;  Using the experience of our Flood Resilience Community Pathfinder project, explore the potential for establishing local flood groups and action plans, environmental stewardship and volunteering initiatives including Community Flood Wardens;  Promote increased property level resilience through targeted guidance, product and scheme demonstrations;  Identify opportunities for property level flood protection and potential funding to help deliver it; and  Ensure riparian owners are fully aware of their responsibilities and work with them to ensure appropriate land management and assets and structures that have been identified as having a significant role in flood risk management are appropriately maintained.

Work as a Lead Local Flood Authority and with other flood risk management agencies to manage flood risk better, reduce the impact of flooding and wherever possible reduce or remove risk through investing in our drainage infrastructure and its future management

13.8 The LLFA will:

 Ensure that flood risk management is well co-ordinated and delivered through appropriate partnerships and catchment scale approaches where required including where the causes, effects and solutions for flood risk management extend beyond Rochdale borough’s LLFA boundary;  Work with other LLFA’s and Risk Management Authorities, principally the Environment Agency and United Utilities to ensure that flood risk is

Rochdale Borough’s Strategy for FloodPage Risk Management 125 2013-2023 (Consultation Draft) October 2013 Delivering our strategic objectives P a g e | 45

not passed on through flood risk management activities carried out upstream;  Prepare specific flood risk management plans for all identified areas of high flood risk in conjunction with other Risk Management Authorities where appropriate including the River Roch and its principal tributaries in Littleborough and central Rochdale and for surface water flood risk in Heywood;  Identify partnership projects and joint working arrangements to address significant flood risks for all water bodies in the borough including all principal rivers and tributaries;  Develop strategic projects and partnership actions with a particular focus on the River Roch and tributaries and surface water flood risks in Heywood, Littleborough and central Rochdale;  Prepare and deliver asset management and improvement programmes for highways drainage and flood risk management assets in the ownership of Rochdale Council; and  Establish a funding strategy for short, medium and long term projects to maximise opportunities for Flood Defence Grant in Aid and other sources of funding to deliver the LLFA’s priorities.

Ensure that development and land management do not increase flood risks and contribute to sustainable drainage and reduction of flood risk

13.9 The LLFA will:

 Ensure that the requirements for flood risk management set out in the National Planning Policy Framework and local Development Plan Documents are delivered through well located development which does not increase flood risk on site or downstream;  Support production of Supplementary Planning Guidance by the Local Planning Authority to ensure the objectives and priorities of the flood risk management strategy are clearly recognised in planning policy and decisions and site and area based briefs and masterplans;  Ensure the establishment of a Sustainable Drainage Approval Body compliant with government guidelines to ensure that proposals for sustainable drainage systems which require consent meet required standards and are appropriate for the development and location;  Promote sustainable drainage systems wherever technically feasible and cost effective; and  Ensure that all works on watercourses which could affect flood risk management have formal consent of the LLFA where required and that appropriate enforcement action is taken to ensure that unauthorised works are made compliant or are removed.

Rochdale Borough’s Strategy for PageFlood Risk Management126 2013-2023 (Consultation Draft) October 2013 Delivering our strategic objectives P a g e | 46

Ensure that how we manage and reduce flood risk helps our local communities, economy and environment to be more resilient to climate change impacts and helps to deliver a clean and safe water environment, rich in wildlife and opportunities for its enjoyment.

13.10 The LLFA will:

 Ensure all of our flood risk management projects and maintenance activities are compliant with Water Framework Directive requirements and help to deliver priorities established for the River Irwell catchment including through the Rivers Return partnership;  Support delivery of green infrastructure projects which provide new or improved sustainable drainage assets including tree planting and flood storage;  Support environmental stewardship proposals which seek to reduce litter and fly tipping and poor land management that can cause obstructions in watercourses;  Deliver flood risk management projects which help to provide safe recreational access to our rivers and other water bodies;  Ensure that flood risk management protects and wherever possible enhances and creates habitat and supports the conservation and improvement of landscape heritage;  Support partnership working such as through the Irwell Rivers return project; and  Work with delivery organisations such as the Pennine Edge Forest and Pennine Prospects and the Environment Agency and Greater Manchester Ecology Unit to identify appropriate green infrastructure and ecological enhancements.

Rochdale Borough’s Strategy for FloodPage Risk Management 127 2013-2023 (Consultation Draft) October 2013 Our Strategic Projects P a g e | 47

14 Our Strategic Projects

14.1 The Local Flood Risk Management Strategy will be delivered through a separate delivery plan including an annually reviewed work programme consisting of a range of actions both strategic and very local neighbourhood actions. Together they will help to manage and reduce flood risk in the borough. The strategy will involve a range of delivery approaches and timescales and it will include:

 Studies and investigations to ensure targeting of activities and proposals are well planned and based on good evidence;  On-going maintenance activities for flood risk management assets, land and water bodies and highways;  Partnership projects with other Risk Management Authorities including the Environment Agency and United Utilities to ensure more effective and integrated drainage and flood resilience strategies can be delivered for all sources of flood risk;  Development led sustainable drainage systems and flood defence measures;  Local authority asset improvement programmes; and  Local community projects including environmental improvements, property level flood resilience, awareness and preparedness activities which may be included in local community flood risk action plans and green infrastructure plans.

14.2 The work programme will be reviewed annually to take account of updated flood risk data, availability of funding and flood risk events and their impact where they have taken place.

14.3 The Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) will adopt a proactive and responsive approach and will take opportunities to manage flood risk better wherever opportunities arise based on robust evidence of flood risk and its impact on people and their properties, business and the potential for disruption to highways and other essential infrastructure. Particular focus will be targeted on the areas of highest flood risk in the borough where need is greatest and the opportunity to attract resources working in partnership with the Environment Agency, United Utilities, land owners and developers to help manage or reduce that flood risk are most significant. These priority areas are set out in brief below and more detailed project plans for each will be produced. An illustration of the strategic flood risk management priorities in Rochdale borough can be seen in Figure 12 below.

Rochdale Borough’s Strategy for PageFlood Risk Management128 2013-2023 (Consultation Draft) October 2013 Our Strategic Projects P a g e | 48

Figure 12 Strategic flood risk management priorities in Rochdale borough

Rochdale Borough’s Strategy for FloodPage Risk Management 129 2013-2023 (Consultation Draft) October 2013 Our Strategic Projects P a g e | 49

The River Roch – Littleborough to Rochdale Town Centre

14.4 The River Roch and its tributaries form the principal river system in Rochdale borough. They represent the highest source of fluvial flood risk in Rochdale borough which also contributes to downstream flood risk in the River Irwell catchment. Particular areas of high flood risk are located in Littleborough, and Smithy Bridge, Heybrook and Wardleworth and Rochdale town centre where the risk to residential properties and for severe disruption to business and travel is high. Risk from surface water flooding in these locations as identified in the Greater Manchester Surface Water Management Plan is also high creating a combined flood risk in many locations. The Environment Agency has designated parts of Littleborough and central Rochdale as a flash flooding area where water levels can rise quickly in heavy rainfall. The River Roch is a priority catchment for the Environment Agency who are currently undertaking a study of flood risk and opportunities for enhanced flood defences and flood storage in Littleborough which will help to manage and reduce risk more effectively.

14.5 The LLFA’s objectives for the River Roch are to:

 develop a strategic approach to flood risk management for the Roch Valley building effective partnerships with the Environment Agency and other stakeholders;  reduce flood risk to communities in Littleborough and central Rochdale in particular the numbers of properties assessed as being at significant risk;  reduce risk to business and essential infrastructure;  increase community and business awareness of flood risk and preparedness for flood events and their aftermath;  empower people to be more actively involved in flood risk management within their communities, developing new skills and capacity ;  develop robust and long term structures for the continued active involvement of local people in flood risk management through Flood Action Groups and associated Flood Action Plans working with Risk Management Authorities; and  support economic growth and community regeneration through more effective flood risk management which helps to unlock regeneration and growth opportunities and is embedded in future development and environmental management proposals.

14.6 Rochdale Council is currently developing proposals for reducing flood risk along Calder Brook in Littleborough, one of the main upstream tributaries for the River Roch and is working with the Environment Agency to develop a catchment based approach to flood risk management including de-culverting measures in Rochdale town centre and supporting a package of measures for the River Roch in Littleborough and downstream towards Rochdale based on

Rochdale Borough’s Strategy for PageFlood Risk Management130 2013-2023 (Consultation Draft) October 2013 Our Strategic Projects P a g e | 50

the results of the Agency’s flood risk study. The Council will also work with the Environment Agency to ensure measures to deal with residual risk which may include property level resilience measures are identified and is also working with the Environment Agency and the National Flood Forum to develop increased flood risk awareness and resilience in Wardleworth and Heybrook through the Flood Resilience Community Pathfinder outlined below. Flood risk management is also a priority for the Roch Valley River Park proposal which will also be used to ensure multiple environmental benefits are secured and to help maximise access to resources and engagement with communities.

Central Heywood

14.7 Heywood includes several locations where flood risk is high due to surface water flood risk as identified in the Greater Manchester Surface Water Management Plan. In addition there are pressures on the sewer network in primarily the same locations. Significant flood events have been experienced in recent years at locations including Pilsworth Road, Wilton Grove and Millers Brook Close which are part of the corridors of Wrigley Brook and Millers Brook.

14.8 The LLFA’s objectives for Heywood are to:

 understand the causes of flood risk from all sources better;  develop sustainable drainage solutions to reduce flood risk to residential properties and businesses at significant risk of flooding working in partnership with United Utilities, the Environment Agency and other stakeholders;  increase community and business awareness of flood risk and preparedness for flood events and their aftermath;  empower people to be more actively involved in flood risk management within their communities; and  support economic growth and community regeneration through more effective flood risk management which is embedded in future development and environmental management proposals.

14.9 The LLFA will work with United Utilities to further investigate flood risk in Heywood and to identify measures for improved sewerage infrastructure and sustainable drainage systems. The need for further measures to deal with residual risk such as property level resilience will also be identified. As with central Rochdale, Heywood is also a part of the borough’s Flood Resilience Community Pathfinder and work is underway with the National Flood Forum to increase flood awareness and community resilience to flood risk.

Rochdale Borough’s Strategy for FloodPage Risk Management 131 2013-2023 (Consultation Draft) October 2013 Our Strategic Projects P a g e | 51

Flood Resilience Community Pathfinder

14.10 The Rochdale borough Flood Resilience Community Pathfinder project is funded through Defra to help increase awareness and preparedness in communities significantly affected by flood risk where behavioural change can be achieved and flood risk reduced in quantifiable ways.

14.11 The LLFA has established a partnership with the National Flood Forum to deliver a programme of engagement and capacity building with communities in Heywood and central Rochdale around Wardleworth and Heybrook to:

 raise awareness and understanding of local flood risk and how it can affect their lives;  Increase local ownership of flood risk and responsibility for managing it within the community;  Work with all sections of the community including local businesses, schools, neighbourhood and faith groups;  increase property level protection, community resilience and preparedness and help support access to more affordable insurance in areas characterised by multiple deprivation, in particular for properties and locations identified as being at significant risk;  create a positive and robust forum for working with risk management authorities where local communities are more empowered and engaged in planning and managing flood risk solutions that affect them;  foster greater participation in local environmental stewardship; and  develop an approach which can be used with other communities at risk.

14.12 The National Flood Forum are a national charity dedicated to supporting and representing communities at risk of flooding. Working with Rochdale Council, the National Flood Forum and supported by Groundwork Oldham and Rochdale and the University of Manchester, the project will support local communities in establishing local flood risk action groups and preparing locally produced action plans for flood risk management that they can deliver with the support of the LLFA, Environment Agency and United Utilities. Communities and individuals will be empowered and supported in achieving innovative, sustainable and deliverable solutions to flooding and reducing its impact and occurrence. The formal project will be completed in March 2015 but is expected to have an established legacy in the project communities through improved engagement between flood risk management authorities and communities with a shared delivery plan and established community champions. The project will also establish a model for working with other flood affected communities in the borough such as in Littleborough.

Rochdale Borough’s Strategy for PageFlood Risk Management132 2013-2023 (Consultation Draft) October 2013 F u n d i n g P a g e | 52

15 Funding

15.1 The Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) will ensure that flood risk management is carried out in a cost effective way based on a series of key principles:

 ensuring appropriate maintenance programmes to limit the need for costly replacement work wherever possible;  maximising use of external funding and in kind resources such as through partnership projects, grant funds and developer contributions;  wherever possible securing contributions from beneficiaries of improved flood resilience whilst ensuring that more deprived communities are not disadvantaged;  embedding flood risk management where required as an essential part of development and environmental improvement projects and management regimes; and  clearly focusing the strategy on reducing flood risk which affects people’s homes and local business thereby reducing the full cost of flood risk to the borough, its communities and economy.

15.2 Opportunities for ‘quick wins’ will be identified on a continual basis using all available funding sources which will primarily be for small scale projects.

15.3 Most flood risk management projects require a lead in time where a business case for funding or a formal application must be submitted. In some cases projects will require a number of funding phases to be identified for example investigation of flood risk and developing options for addressing that risk prior to a bid for funding to deliver the final project. The LLFA’s work programme will take account of the timescales required for project development and delivery including where necessary the investment processes and timescales relevant to our partners and key funding sources by establishing short, medium and longer term actions.

15.4 The LLFA is working with partners such as the Environment Agency and United Utilities to identify partnership funding opportunities for more strategic investigations and capital investment projects with particular focus on the River Roch corridor and central Heywood where flood risk is highest and opportunities to share investment priorities are greatest. The LLFA is also working with all Greater Manchester districts through AGMA and the Greater Manchester Flood and Water Management Board to develop an ‘investment pipeline’ including projects with a higher economic value to Greater Manchester, helping to deliver the Greater Manchester Strategy and a programme of investigations, drainage asset improvements and flood resilience projects seeking Flood Defence Grant in Aid and Local Levy funding.

Rochdale Borough’s Strategy for FloodPage Risk Management 133 2013-2023 (Consultation Draft) October 2013 F u n d i n g P a g e | 53

15.5 The main sources of potential funding for our flood risk management work programme will be:

 Local authority capital investment programmes;  Local authority Local Services Support Grant;  Fees and charges relating to statutory flood risk management functions including SAB applications and consent for works on Ordinary watercourses;  Flood Defence Grant in Aid through Defra and the RFCC;  Local Levy through the RFCC;  Defra Flood Resilience Community Pathfinder Programme;  Development related funding such as Section 106 contributions and subject to its introduction, Community Infrastructure Levy;  United Utilities Asset Management Plan;  European Regional Development Fund; and  Environmental and community grant programmes

15.6 Opportunities for funding will be constantly reviewed and updated through the Flood Risk Management Strategy delivery plan and work programme updates.

Rochdale Borough’s Strategy for PageFlood Risk Management134 2013-2023 (Consultation Draft) October 2013 Monitoring and review P a g e | 54

16 Monitoring and review

16.1 It is important that our strategy takes full account of changing flood data affecting our borough and wider catchment areas of which it forms a part, legislative requirements, recent flood events, and their impacts, locally determined priorities and the various policies, programmes and funding opportunities relevant to this agenda which can change through time.

16.2 The Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) will establish a monitoring and evaluation framework for this strategy and its associated work programme identifying quantifiable changes in flood risk reduction that will be measured including:

 Numbers of properties and businesses moved to a lower band of flood risk through flood resilience measures;  Numbers of property and business owners better informed about flood risks affecting them and their community;  The condition of local authority assets which have a significant role for flood risk management;  Numbers of local community flood groups and initiatives established and their achievements; and  Numbers of sustainable drainage systems delivered in the borough.

16.3 The LLFA will carry out a quarterly review of established work programmes for flood risk management and an annual review of progress against delivering the objectives of the strategy. A full review of the Flood Risk Management Strategy will be carried out through Rochdale Council no later than 5 years after approval to ensure it remains fit for purpose and clearly focused on flood risks affecting the borough and is an effective tool in delivering better flood risk management and a reduction in risk for communities at significant risk and our local economy.

16.4 The Strategy will be supplemented over time by a range of appendices which assist the clarity and delivery of the strategy. Future supplementary elements to the strategy will address new national, regional and local policy, guidance and standards where appropriate or provide greater detail or clarity to the delivery plan for the strategy. Future appendices will be included with the version of the strategy available through the Rochdale Council website and include:

 The delivery plan and subsequent annual reviews;  Supplementary Planning Documents;  Further supporting documents for the Sustainable Drainage Approval Body when established (expected April 2014);

Rochdale Borough’s Strategy for FloodPage Risk Management 135 2013-2023 (Consultation Draft) October 2013 Monitoring and review P a g e | 55

 Local Flood Action Plans where produced through the Rochdale Flood Resilience Community Pathfinder and any subsequent initiatives supported by the LLFA;  Relevant further studies and research; and  New or revised policy, guidance and standards relevant to the strategy and its delivery including those produced by the LLFA, other Risk Management Authorities, the Regional Flood and Coastal Committee and the Association of Greater Manchester Authorities/Greater Manchester Combined Authority.

Rochdale Borough’s Strategy for PageFlood Risk Management136 2013-2023 (Consultation Draft) October 2013 Further information P a g e | 56

17 Further information

17.1 The list of references included below is not exhaustive but provides a starting point to find out more about flood risk and flood resilience. If you have a specific enquiry you should in the first instance contact Rochdale Council or the Environment Agency for further advice.

17.2 Rochdale Council as Lead Local Flood Authority can provide further information on flood risk issues and projects in Rochdale borough and can advise on issues relating to the Local Flood Risk Management Strategy, planning proposals, local flood risk management projects and improving local flood awareness and preparedness. Once approved the Local Strategy and its supplementary documents and further relevant local documents will be available through the Council’s website www.rochdale.gov.uk. Please contact 01706 924252 or email [email protected]

17.3 Details of legislation relating to flood risk management and other publications including consultation on new plans and guidance is available through Defra and can be viewed and downloaded through their website www.gov.uk

17.4 The Environment Agency can provide details of the most up to date flood mapping for rivers, surface water and reservoirs and other advice about flooding for Rochdale borough. The Agency also publishes various plans, strategies, advice and guidance such as ‘Living On The Edge’ a handbook for riparian owners about their responsibilities. Much information including flood maps can be viewed or downloaded through their website www.environment- agency.gov.uk

17.5 The Association of Greater Manchester Authorities (AGMA) website includes access to plans, strategies and studies relating to flood risk including the GM Strategic Flood Risk Assessment and also, under the ‘Greater Manchester Prepared’ section of the website advice which refers to reservoir, surface water and river flooding and relevant emergency response matters. Visit www.agma.gov.uk

17.6 The National Flood Forum are a national charity dedicated to providing support and advice to communities and individuals at risk of flooding. Amongst other matters they can advise about flood insurance, setting up local flood groups and provide advice about property level flood resilience. The Flood Forum publishes its ‘Blue Pages’ directory of flood protection products and services. Visit their website at www.floodforum.org.uk

17.7 The University of Manchester in collaboration with Manchester Metropolitan University and the Building Research Establishment has produced a guide to

Rochdale Borough’s Strategy for FloodPage Risk Management 137 2013-2023 (Consultation Draft) October 2013 Further information P a g e | 57

property level flood protection for property owners ‘Six Steps To Property Level Flood Protection’ which can be obtained through the National Flood Forum website.

17.8 The EcoCities project is a joint initiative between the University of Manchester and property company Bruntwood and looks at climate change impacts and adaptation responses in Greater Manchester. The key findings are available at www.adaptingmanchester.co.uk which includes a web based spatial portal enabling users to visualise climate change hazards and vulnerabilities.

Rochdale Borough’s Strategy for PageFlood Risk Management138 2013-2023 (Consultation Draft) October 2013 Appendix 1 – AGMA Policy for Investigating Flood Incidents P a g e | 58

18 Appendix 1 - AGMA policy for investigating flood incidents

THE LEGISLATION

Section 19 of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 states that:

(1) On becoming aware of a flood in its area, a lead local flood authority (LLFA) must, to the extent

that it considers necessary or appropriate, investigate: (a) Which risk management authorities have relevant flood risk management functions, and (b) Whether each of those risk management authorities has exercised, or is proposing to

exercise, those functions in response to the flood (2) Where an authority carried out an investigation under subsection (1) it must – (a) Publish the results of its investigation, and (b) Notify any relevant risk management authorities

NB. The term ‘flood’ includes any case where land not normally covered by water becomes covered by water (from natural sources). It does not include flooding from a burst water main or any part of the sewage network (unless caused by the volume of rainwater entering the system).

1.0 RATIONALE

There has been no guidance provided on how to discharge this duty and many elements remain highly subjective. As a result, and to avoid inconsistency across the conurbation; this policy has been drafted for local implementation to improve the understanding of flood risk and flood risk management uniformly.

The focus of this policy is not solely around the identification of the necessity to instigate an investigation but to ensure that a process is in place to gather supporting evidence. Initially from the information received relating to a flood incident it may be deemed a full investigation is not appropriate but by having a process in place as outlined in this document the supporting evidence is in situ if the incident escalates to one of much greater significance once the impact of the flooding is known.

1.1 REPORTING PROCEDURES

Depending on the circumstances, flooding may be reported to the LLFA through a number of different sources, including: The Contact Centre; Highways and Engineering Service; Emergency Planning Service; Housing Management Services and the Emergency Services, any of which may take the initial notification of the incident. It is therefore vital to ensure that one nominated contact (the Lead Local Flood Officer or the relevant team) is identified, and that training and awareness sessions are put in place to ensure reports and details of the incident are all correctly directed and are not missed. A secondary contact should also be nominated to ensure cover during absences, and a system should also be put in place to cover flood incidents which occur outside of normal office hours.

Rochdale Borough’s Strategy for FloodPage Risk Management 139 2013-2023 (Consultation Draft) October 2013 Appendix 1 – AGMA Policy for Investigating Flood Incidents P a g e | 59

2.0 CRITERIA FOR UNDERTAKING INVESTIGATION Not all flood incidents will justify a full investigation. Despite this, it is necessary to collect focal information from all incidents, even where the impact of the incident is minimal. All data gathered can be used to inform and predict the consequences of more serious incidents, not doing this may hinder a comprehensive understanding of risk across an LLFA area.

Where the incident has impacted on resources it may be decided that data is gathered post event when resources allow. Information such as photographs, flow paths and sources should be recorded where possible and even if they are not required as part of an investigation will become useful evidence especially to support and quantify the identified risk areas.

If it is found that flooding occurs on a frequent basis to a property/area it may be frequency rather than the scale of the incident that triggers an investigation in the future.

2.1 IMPACT/CONSEQUENCE

It is recommended that an incident be defined as ‘significant’ based on any of the following factors and would potentially trigger a full investigation (see assessment matrix section 5.0):

Trigger Consequence. Risk to life Death, accident/ injury. Weight of public, Reputation. media, political and planning interest

Rochdale Borough’s Strategy for PageFlood Risk Management140 2013-2023 (Consultation Draft) October 2013 Appendix 1 – AGMA Policy for Investigating Flood Incidents P a g e | 60

Impact on critical Critical services include schools, hospitals, nursing homes and services emergency services. Internal residential ‘Internal’ flooding includes flooding inside the main property and any property flooding - > outbuildings which provide living accommodation. Any flooding of 5/6 other outbuildings and garages etc. should be classed as ‘external’, except where they are integral to the main property and accessible via an internal door. – It is important to collect accurate records of internal property flooding, to support any decisions on flood defence funding. This information may be requested in regards to future property purchases, any inaccurate data could potentially prejudice a sale resulting in legal action.

Economic disruption Consider the relative impacts of flooding of commercial property. In some cases, flooding of a single commercial property could no more warrant investigation than flooding of a single residential property; but in other cases, the serious flooding of a large, single property could be extremely disruptive to the economic functioning of a community or have significant impact on a local or regional economy, and would therefore certainly trigger an investigation. Other causes of economic disruption should be covered by consideration of impacts upon infrastructure. Impact on critical Critical infrastructure includes motorways, ‘A’ roads, rail links, port infrastructure and facilities, utility installations, bridges, flood defences etc. installations Frequency of flooding Also consider depth of flooding, were residents displaced and the duration of such.

 Effective deployment of defensive measures should also be recorded.  Consideration should also be given to any locally significant flood incidents which the LLFA may choose to investigate regardless of the criteria above.

3.0 SCOPE OF EVIDENCE GATHERING

Regardless as to whether a flood incident will result in a full and formal published investigation gathering information relating to the cause and impact of the flooding is necessary at all stages of the event.

Whilst the amount of data required to provide an insight into the cause of the flooding should remain proportionate to the size of the event it is imperative that all LLFA’s ensure a process is embedded to support this. It is each districts responsibility to nominate a Lead Flood Officer and provide training and incident response procedures which align with this policy.

If there are issues around the nominated Flood Officer having the capacity or correct training to attend, this should be overcome through training and awareness sessions between all involved directorates and a strong Flood Risk Management Working Group.

Part of the process should also identify the means of capturing this data and in what format it should be recorded and stored to ensure the information can be viewed and shared for use by any relevant parties. This will not only ensure relevant data is captured in a timely manner but evidence is available to support future bids within the GM investment programme.

Rochdale Borough’s Strategy for FloodPage Risk Management 141 2013-2023 (Consultation Draft) October 2013 Appendix 1 – AGMA Policy for Investigating Flood Incidents P a g e | 61

3.1 STAGE 1 – Incident Recording The following information should be gathered at the time the incident is reported:

Information type Information required Caller details:  Name  Address  Telephone number  e-mail By what route was  Direct from the caller the call received:  3rd party o family or friends of the person affected o other RMA’s o Emergency services o Councillor on behalf of their constituency o Other – please state Incident details:  Reference no:  Address/ location:  Date and Time of incident: What is/has flooded:  Property – internal – If Yes, ask whether basement or Ground floor  Property – external  Level of flooding (if already occurred) – approximate depth  Highway  Open space (define)  Other (define) Where is/was the  Overflowing Manhole/Drain water coming from:  Overflow from a river or stream  Water running off the highway  Water running off a field  Other (define)  Don’t Know Additional risk  Is/was there a danger to life? (if yes advise caller to information: contact the emergency services immediately)  Is/was there a foul smell?  Is/was there evidence of sewage in the water?  Is the water still rising? If so, how deep is it?  Is there a watercourse nearby? If so, what is it called?  Is there on-going traffic disruption?  Other factors (define)

3.2 STAGE 2 - Site Information Data Gathering This information whilst again being proportionate to the size of the event is necessary to validate initial reports received from the public or 3rd parties including the media and would be included in the final report if a full investigation is required. Each LLFA should aim to gather the following information:

Rochdale Borough’s Strategy for PageFlood Risk Management142 2013-2023 (Consultation Draft) October 2013 Appendix 1 – AGMA Policy for Investigating Flood Incidents P a g e | 62

Information type Information required Incident details:  Reference no:  Location:  Date and time of incident:  Date and time of site visit What is/has flooded:  number and type of receptors affected;  extent, depth and velocity of flooding  extent of damage to critical infrastructure Where is/was the  source and cause of flooding and any interactions with water coming from: other sources of flooding;

Additional risk  duration of event; information:  topographic / land use / drainage infrastructure information associated with the affected site;  any immediate resolution, and any links to longer term mitigation / management measures;  previous similar and historic incidents  any measures taken during the event to limit damage and their apparent effectiveness  photographic evidence of flooding

4.0 PUBLISHING

If a Formal Investigation has been undertaken, the LLFA has a legal Duty to publish a report of its findings. Local procedures for approval and publishing of public documents should apply.

Special consideration should be made for cross-boundary incidents, and the format of reporting and sharing of information should be agreed between neighbouring LLFAs.

5.0 ASSESSMENT MATRIX

The following table provides guidance as to determine whether a full investigation is required:

IF ‘YES’ IF ‘NO’ NUMBER FLOODING IMPACT GO TO: GO TO:

Has a flood incident occurred?  Internal property flooding - residential/commercial  Economic disruption 1  Risk to life or public health  Affecting critical services, infrastructure and or installations 4 2  Deployment of defensive measures

Has a flood incident occurred to; 2  Non-priority highways? 3 ---  Parks, gardens or open space (posing no threat to life or

Rochdale Borough’s Strategy for FloodPage Risk Management 143 2013-2023 (Consultation Draft) October 2013 Appendix 1 – AGMA Policy for Investigating Flood Incidents P a g e | 63

public health)? 3 Is there a local/ political desire to investigate the incident? 4 12 Have you identified the relevant risk management authority?

If necessary, arrange a meeting of the local flood risk 4 management partnership (A meeting may only be necessary for 8 5 major events – minor events may only need information circulated by phone or email between LLFA, the Environment Agency and United Utilities) 5 Notify the relevant flood risk management authority 6 --- Is the risk management authority exercising their functions in 6 7 4 relation to this incident? Log the correspondence in the incident file and request copies 7 ------of the outcome if/ when appropriate. 8 Is there a history of flooding in the area? 9 13 9 Has this been investigated before? 10 13 10 Is the cause and extent the same as previous incidents? 11 13 Log incident details; promote self-help and community 11 12 --- resilience. REVIEW SITE VISIT & DATA COLLECTION 12 13 11 Is a full investigation required based on information available? FULL INVESTIGATION – AND PUBLISH 13 ------Consider scope for Flood Defence Grant in Aid application for property-protection scheme.

Rochdale Borough’s Strategy for PageFlood Risk Management144 2013-2023 (Consultation Draft) October 2013 Appendix 2 – Illustrating flood risk P a g e | 64

19 Appendix 2 – Flood risk in Rochdale borough and its relationship to multiple deprivation

Figure 13 Flood risk in Rochdale borough and its relationship to multiple deprivation

Rochdale Borough’s Strategy for FloodPage Risk Management 145 2013-2023 (Consultation Draft) October 2013

P a g e | 65

Mark Widdup, Director of Economy and Environment, Rochdale Borough Council

For information please contact: Strategic Planning Team – [email protected] – 01706 924252

Rochdale Borough’s Strategy for PageFlood Risk Management146 2013-2023 (Consultation Draft) October 2013