Public Document Pack

LEGAL & DEMOCRATIC SERVICES

Linda Fisher Service Director

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

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

To: All Members of Pennines Your Ref: Township Committee Our Ref: Enquiries to: Michael Garraway Extension: 4716 Date: 11 th May 2011

Dear Councillor

PENNINES TOWNSHIP COMMITTEE

You are requested to attend the meeting of Pennines Township Committee to be held in St. James Primary School, Crossfield Road, Wardle, Rochdale, OL12 9JW on Tuesday, 24 May 2011 commencing at 6.15 pm.

The agenda and supporting papers are attached.

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

Yours faithfully

Linda Fisher Service Director

Pennines Township Committee Membership 2011/12

Councillor Jean Ashworth Councillor Martin Burke Councillor Robert Clegg Councillor Janet Darnbrough Councillor Irene Davidson Councillor Ashley Dearnley Councillor Peter Ernest Evans Councillor Aftab Hussain Councillor Andy Kelly Councillor Stephanie Mills Councillor Martin Eric Rodgers Councillor Ann Stott

1

ROCHDALE METROPOLITAN BOROUGH COUNCIL

PENNINES TOWNSHIP COMMITTEE

Tuesday, 24 May 2011 at 6.15 pm

St. James Primary School, Crossfield Road, Wardle, Rochdale, OL12 9JW

A G E N D A

Apologies for Absence 1. Appointment of Chair 2011/12 2. Appointment of Vice - Chair 2011/12 3. Apologies for Absence 4. Declarations of Interest 5. OPEN FORUM (6.15 p.m. - 6.45 p.m.) 6. Public Health White Paper 2010 - Presentation by the Director of Public Health (Heywood, Middleton and Rochdale PCT) MINUTES 7. Pennines Township Committee 8 March 2011 8. Pennines Township Planning Sub - Committee 16 March 2011 9. Pennines Township Planning Sub - Committee 14 April 2011 10. To note the proceedings of the Open Forum of the meeting held on 8 March 2011 ITEMS FOR DECISION 11. Appointment of Sub-Committees, Working Groups and Other Bodies for 2011/12 12. Pennines Township Committee, Sub-Committee and Delegation Arrangements for 2011/12 13. Traffic Regulation Order - Buckley Lane/Millgate 14. Waiting Restrictions and Revocation of existing Waiting Restrictions in Milnrow Town Centre and adjacent streets 15. Traffic Regulation Order for a Residents' Permit Parking Scheme - Hollingworth Lake, Littleborough 16. No Waiting at Any Time Restrictions, Lake Bank, Littleborough 17. Proposed Taxi Rank Locations - Littleborough Town Centre 18. Littleborough Town Centre Conservation Area - Proposed Variation of the North Boundary to include the Caldermoor PH & Hare Hill House & Park 19. School Governing Body Vacancies

2 ITEMS FOR INFORMATION 20. Littleborough Waterside - Progress report 21. Section 106 planning agreements (Development Contributions) 22. Review of Pennines Township Funds

3 This page is intentionally left blank Public Document Pack Agenda Item 7

PENNINES TOWNSHIP COMMITTEE

MINUTES OF MEETING Tuesday, 8 March 2011

PRESENT: Councillor Darnbrough (In the Chair); Councillors Ashworth, Burke, Robert Clegg, Irene Davidson, Dearnley, Evans, Jones, Kelly, Kerslake (Vice-Chair), Mills and Swift

OFFICERS: P. Sharp (Service Director Regeneration Service), A. Glover and A. Eadie (Planning & Regulation Service), A. Cooper (Learners and Young Peoples Service), P. Egan (Regeneration Service), I. Bentley (Performance & Transformation Service) and M. Garraway (Legal & Democratic Services)

Also in Attendance: T. Wood, J. Grahamslaw and C. Thompson (Impact Partnership), J. Taylor (Link4Life).

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST 79 There were no declarations of interest.

WITHDRAWAL OF AGENDA ITEM 80 The Chair indicated that agenda item 14 – Pennines Township Year End report – would be withdrawn and will be considered at the next scheduled meeting of the Township Committee, on 24 th May 2011.

OPEN FORUM (6.15PM -6.45PM) 81 The following items were raised by members of the public- a) Littleborough Parking Scheme Mr Johnson of Milnrow Road, Littleborough addressed the Township Committee detailing the unique position of his property and requesting the Council considers his application to be included in any future resident parking scheme. The Director of Highways responded that the application was under consideration and the request would be included.

In addition a petition signed by 30 residents of Higher Cleggswood Avenue, Littleborough, requesting the Council introduce a parking control order on the said Avenue. The Petition was passed to The Director of Highways for consideration. b) Youth Nuisance Aly Cooper introduced herself to the Township Committee as the new Youth Service lead for the Township.

A Member of the Township Committee commented on youths using motorbikes on land near Hollingworth High School and informed the Township Committee of a petition that had been submitted to the representative of the Regeneration Service for further investigation. Members noted the same issues had occurred at Barnes Meadows.

Members of the Township Committee commended the Youth Service on the number and range of events available in the Pennines Township for young people during the recent half term.

MINUTES

Page 1 82 DECIDED – That the minutes of the meeting held on 11th January 2011 be approved as a correct record.

OPEN FORUM OF THE MEETING HELD 11 JANUARY 2011 83 DECIDED – That the proceedings of the Open Forum held on 11 th January 2011 be noted.

PENNINES TOWNSHIP PLANNING SUB --COMMITTEE HELD ON 14 DECEMBER 2010 84 DECIDED – That the minutes of the Pennines Township Planning Sub – Committee held on 14 th December 2010 be noted.

PENNINES TOWNSHIP PLANNING SUB --COMMITTEE HELD ON 16 FEBRUARY 2011 85 DECIDED – That the minutes of the Pennines Township Planning Sub – Committee held on 16 th February 2011 be noted.

PENNINES TOWNSHIP FUNDS GRANTS SUB --COMMITTEE HELD ON 9 FEBRUARY 2011 86 The Township Committee noted the exclusion of an approval of a grant in the sum of £2004 to the Youth Service which had been agreed at the meeting of the Pennines Funds Grants Sub – Committee held on 9 th February 2011. DECIDED – That with the additional of the item detailed above the minutes of the Pennines Township Funds Grants Sub – Committee held on 9 th February 2011 be noted.

NOTES FROM THE PENNINES TOWNSHIP SERVICE GROUP 1 MEETING HELD ON 1 FEBRUARY 2011 87 The Chair indicated that the notes of the Pennines Service Groups had been included for the information of Members due to the small attendance at the meetings. DECIDED – That the notes of the Pennines Township Service Group 1 meeting be noted.

NOTES FROM THE PENNINES TOWNSHIP SERVICE GROUP 2 MEETING HELD ON 15 FEBRUARY 2011 88 The Township Committee considered the notes of the meeting of the Pennines Township Service Group 2 held on 15 th February 2011. A Member informed the Township Committee the notes relating to the any other business heading were an incorrect statement and did not accurately reflect her comments at the meeting. Concerns exist around the Council and partners support provided to Ellen Road Trust, and not with the Trustees. DECIDED – That the notes of the Pennines Township Service Group 2 meeting be noted.

NOTES FROM THE PENNINES TOWNSHIP SERVICE GROUP 3 MEETING HELD ON 8 FEBRUARY 2011 89 DECIDED – That the notes of the Pennines Township Service Group 3 meeting be noted.

SCHOOL GOVERNING BODY VACANCIES 90 The Township Committee considered a report of the Service Director for Schools (PT. 11/11) that outlined the current Local Authority School Governor vacancies and requested that the Township Committee makes the appropriate Eligible appointments. The recommendations were presented as the Township Committee for call- in

No Page 2 acts in accordance with the agreed procedures in appointing Local Authority representatives to serve on School Governing Bodies.

Alternatives considered: There were no alternative methods of filling Local Authority Governor vacancies. DECIDED – That the appointment of an Authority School Governor for Milnrow Parish CE Primary School be deferred to the next meeting of the Township Committee.

FUNDING FOR ADDITIONAL PENNINES TOWNSHIP SCHEMES 91 The Township Manager submitted a report (PT.12/11) updating Members on available Township Funds, resulting from cost savings of Highways schemes Eligible approved before 2010 and minor project under spends. Members were requested to for call- consider a list of submitted schemes and either approve or reject individual schemes in for funding from the £40,130 balance of Pennines Township Funds, including under- spends against completed highways schemes. Yes

The purpose of the report was to allocate the Township budget for 2010 – 2011 and to ensure agreed works comply with priorities within Pennines Township.

Alternatives and risks considered: Members were requested to consider the projects to ensure value for money and efficient use of Township funds. DECIDED – That the following schemes be approved- I. Waiting restrictions at Shore Hill/Halifax Road Junction £3,500; II. Traffic Parking restrictions at Ashbrook Hey Lane £3,500; III. £33,130 and any further savings funds are committed towards the cost of Footway reconstruction at Lightburn Avenue.

GREATER MANCHESTER JOINT MINERALS PLAN 92 The Service Director for Planning and Regulation Service introduced a report (PT.13/11) consulting Members on the Greater Manchester Joint Minerals Plan. The Eligible Minerals Plan details land use issues relating to minerals extraction in Greater for call- in Manchester and provides a sub-regional planning policy framework as a guide to minerals operators and the public about the locations where minerals extraction may No take place, how minerals resources will be safeguarded for future extraction and all aspects of environmental protection including the sustainable transport of minerals for 2012-27. DECIDED – That this Township Committee support the approval of the Publication Joint Minerals Development Plan document and the delegation proposal to the Greater Manchester Joint Minerals Plan Committee.

TOWNSHIP PLAN PREPARATION 2012-15 93 The Township Manager (HT.14/11) outlined how the development of future Township plans would be timetabled to allow local priorities to be identified and delivered within developing service plans.

The recommendations were presented to ensure the clarity on the process for Township priorities being considered in the development of future service plans and to satisfy Members that the identified Township priorities were capable of being delivered within the resource available.

No alternatives had been considered, it being considered that the process would improve service plan content and awareness by members of local Township priorities within the service plan.

Page 3 DECIDED – That (1) the process for the development of Township plans, as outlined within appendix 1 to the submitted report, be approved; (2) the Cabinet be requested to endorse the agreement reached between Eligible for the Portfolio Holder and the Township Committee Chairs meeting for call-in relevant service plans to require an agreement by Township Committees in the September/November cycle of meetings prior to progressing for No subsequent budget approval; (3) a Members only meeting be convened to be held after 6 May 2011 to initiate the process for identifying Pennine Township priorities for 2011/12 and 2012-15.

Page 4 Public Document Pack Agenda Item 8

PENNINES TOWNSHIP PLANNING SUB COMMITTEE

MINUTES OF MEETING Wednesday, 16 March 2011

PRESENT: Councillor Evans (Chair); Councillors Burke, Robert Clegg, Irene Davidson (Vice-Chair), Dearnley, Jones, Kerslake and Swift

OFFICERS: L. Schofield & J. Reynolds (Planning & Regulation Service), and M. Garraway (Legal & Democratic Services).

Also in Attendance: T. Wood (Impact Partnership)

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST 42 Councillor Swift declared a Personal and Prejudicial interest in planning application D53992 for the change of use of land to form a car park within access from Sheriff Street, Milnrow, Rochdale; and left the room during consideration of this item.

Councillor Irene Davidson declared a Personal interest in planning application D54040 for the change of use from a retail shop to betting shop including the installation of two air conditioning condenser units, one satellite dish and antennae, at 50 Church Street, Littleborough.

PLANNING APPLICATIONS a) Change of use to form a Car Park, Land at Sheriff Street, Milnrow, Rochdale

The Service Director for Planning & Regulation Services (PT.15/11) reported on submitted planning application D53992 for the change of use of land to form a car park within access from Sheriff Street, Milnrow, Rochdale.

Further to the submitted report, the Service Director for Planning & Regulation Services informed the Members of a letter of representation received from an objector.

The Sub Committee received representations from the applicant. DECIDED – That planning permission be permitted subject to conditions as detailed within the submitted report. b) Change of use from retail to betting shop at 50 Church Street, Littleborough

The Service Director for Planning & Regulation Services (PT.15/11) reported on submitted planning application D54040 for the change of use from a retail shop to betting shop including the installation of two air conditioning condenser units, one satellite dish and antennae, at 50 Church Street, Littleborough.

Further to the submitted report, the Service Director for Planning & Regulation Services informed the Members of two letters of representation received objecting to the application.

The Sub Committee received representations from the applicant. DECIDED – That planning permission be permitted subject to conditions as detailed within the submitted report.

Page 5 COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT AND CONSULTATION ON PLANNING APPLICATIONS 44 The Service Director for Planning and Regulation Services introduced a report (PT.16/11) requesting Members consider guidance to promote timely community involvement and consultation on development proposals being prepared on behalf of the Council and its partners; and seeks the views of Members on this guidance prior to adoption by Regulatory Committee.

The purpose of the report being that the Localism Bill as proposed, will make it a statutory requirement for developers to consult the community on major development projects prior to submitting a planning application. The Council’s Statement of Community Involvement sets out the approach to community consultation in the planning process. This reflects the expectations of Members in going beyond the statutory minimum required.

Risks and Alternatives considered: There are financial and public relations risks to the Council in not engaging properly with communities on development projects which it is intended be submitted for planning permission. These include additional costs incurred by the relevant service in amending projects during the planning process to take account of community or residents objections, together with consequent delays in securing the necessary planning permission. Delays in securing a planning permission may result in the loss of external funding and failure to meet project completion deadlines. DECIDED – That the report be noted.

PLANNING APPEALS 45 DECIDED – That planning appeals be noted.

VOTE OF THANKS 46 Members of the Pennines Planning Sub – Committee expressed their thanks to Lynne Schofield for her years of service on the event of her last Planning Sub – Committee before her retirement.

Page 6 Public Document Pack Agenda Item 9

PENNINES TOWNSHIP PLANNING SUB COMMITTEE

MINUTES OF MEETING Thursday, 14 April 2011

PRESENT: Councillors Robert Clegg, Irene Davidson (Vice-Chair), Dearnley, Kerslake and Swift

OFFICERS: M. Robinson & J. Reynolds (Planning & Regulation Service) and M. Garraway (Legal & Democratic Service)

Apologies for Absence: Councillor Martin Burke, Councillor Peter Ernest Evans and Councillor Rosemary Anne Jones

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST 47 Councillor Swift declared a personal and prejudicial interest in planning application D54108 and left the room during consideration of this application. Councillor Clegg declared a personal and prejudicial interest in planning application D54157 and left the room during consideration of this application.

APPOINTMENT OF CHAIR 48 DECIDED – That Councillor Kerslake be appointed Chair for the duration of the meeting.

PLANNING APPLICATIONS -

INSTALLATION OF A NEW SEPTIC TANK AT WICKEN HALL BARN, NEWHEY, ROCHDALE 50 The Service Director for Planning and Regulation Service reported (RT./`11) on planning application D54108 for the installation of a new septic tank on land adjacent to Wickenhall House, Wicken Hall Barn, Land adjacent to Wicken Hall Farm, Ogden, Newhey, Rochdale.

The Sub –Committee considered the views of local residents objecting to the application.

The Sub –Committee considered the views of Mr M Percy an agent for the application who addressed the Sub –Committee in relation to the application. DECIDED – That planning permission be approved subject to conditions as detailed in the submitted report.

ERECTION OF A TWO STOREY AND SINGLE STOREY EXTENSION TO REAR AND ERECTION OF A FIRST FLOOR EXTENSION TO SIDE DWELLING AT 9 ALMOND CLOSE, LITTLEBOROUGH 51 The Service Director for Planning and Regulation Service reported (PT./11) on submitted planning application D54157 for the erection of a two storey and a single storey extension to the rear and the erection of a first floor extension to the side of the dwelling at 9 Almond Close, Littleborough.

The Sub –Committee considered the views of a resident of Almond Close who addressed the Sub –Committee in relation to the application.

The Sub –Committee considered the views of the applicant who addressed the Sub – Committee in relation to the application.

Page 7 DECIDED – That planning permission be approved subject to the conditions as detailed within the submitted report.

PLANNING APPEALS 52 DECIDED – That planning appeals be noted.

Page 8 Agenda Item 11

REPORT TEMPLATE FOR NON - EXECUTIVE DECISIONS

Subject: Status: For Publication Pennines Township Committee – Appointments 2011/2012 Report to : Date: 24 th May 2011 Pennines Township Committee

Report of: Service Director – Legal and Email: [email protected] Democratic Service Tel: 01706 - 924716 Report Author: Michael Garraway

Report path Pennines Township Committee for decision (non executive).

Comments from Section 151 Officer Y/N Statutory Officers: Monitoring Officer Y/N

1. PURPOSE OF REPORT

1.1 To consider the appointments of the Chair and Vice Chair of the Township Sub- Committees; the appointment of “lead” opposition spokespersons; the appointment of Members to Pennines Township’s Sub-Committees; and the appointment to various Working Groups and Other Bodies.

2. RECOMMENDATIONS

2.1 The Township Committee consider the appointment of the Vice Chair of the Township Committee; 2.2 The Township Committee consider the appointments of Members to the Pennines Township Delegated Sub- Committee, the Pennines Township Planning Sub- Committee and the Pennines Township Fund Sub-Committee. 2.3 The Township Committee considers the appointment of Chair and Vice Chair of the above mentioned Sub-Committees; 2.4 The Township Committee appoint Members to the Township Working Groups/Forums as detailed in the report; 2.5 The Township Committee appoint Members various “Other Bodies” as detailed in the report

3. BACKGROUND

3.1. Appointment of Substitute Members - Members are asked to note that the number of substitute Members appointed by a Political Group to any Committee or Sub-

Version Number: 1 Page: 1 of 5

Page 9 Committee should not exceed the number of ordinary seats held by that Group on that Committee or Sub-Committee, or three Substitute Members in total.

3.2 Members are asked to consider appointments to the following Sub-Committees:

(a) Pennines Township Delegated Sub-Committee The Sub-Committee exercises either delegated powers or acts on any matter within the Committee’s Terms of Reference on which it is essential to take a decision. The 2010/2011 membership comprised five Members and three substitute Members as follows: - Councillor Irene Davidson (Chair) Councillor Clegg (Vice-Chair) Councillor Ashworth Councillor Darnbrough Councillor Jones Substitute Members: Councillors Burke, Dearnley and Swift

Members are also requested to appoint the Chair and Vice-Chair of the Sub- Committee.

(b) Pennines Township Planning Sub-Committee In 2010/2011 eight Members (on the basis of 2 Members per Ward) and two substitute Members were appointed to the Pennines Township Planning Sub- Committee as follows: - Councillor Evans (Chair) Councillor Irene Davidson (Vice Chair) Councillor Burke Councillor Clegg Councillor Dearnley Councillor Jones Councillor Kerslake Councillor Swift

Substitute Members: Councillors Ashworth and Darnbrough.

Members are requested to formally appoint the Sub-Committee and a Chair and Vice- Chair.

(c) Pennines Township Fund Sub-Committee In 2010/2011 the membership of this Sub-Committee comprised eight Members (appointed on the basis of two Members per Ward) and three Substitute Members as follows: - Councillor Evans (in the Chair) Councillor Ashworth (Vice Chair) Councillor Clegg Councillor Darnbrough Councillor Irene Davidson Councillor Jones Councillor Kelly Councillor Kerslake

Substitute Members: - Councillors Dearnley, Mills and Swift

Members are requested to formally appoint a Chair and Vice-Chair of the Sub- Committee.

Version Number: 1 Page: 2 of 5

Page 10

3.4 Working Groups : Members are requested to consider appointments to the following Working Groups/meetings.

(a) Ward Area Forum Meetings The three relevant Ward Members to attend their respective Forums within Milnrow & Newhey and Smallbridge & Firgrove Wards only .

(b) Township Services Groups To appoint one Member per ward to each of three Township Services Groups, the Groups to consider devolved and influenced services as listed in the table below, grouped in line with the Township priorities: –

SERVICE GROUPINGS PEOPLE PLACE HIGHWAYS DEVOLVED Libraries Environmental Highways & Management Engineering • Customer Services • Waste and • Highways’ & Libraries Recycling. related • Revenues & • Regeneration devolved Benefits • (Tourism) budgets and • Leisure Trust • Planning & Township INFLUENCED • Learners & Young Regulation funding. People • Development • Child Care Control • Schools • Strategic Housing • Adult Care • Community Centres

3.5 In 2010/2011 the membership of the Township Service Groups comprised four Members (appointed on the basis of one Member per ward) as follows: -

(a) Service Group 1 (People) Councillor Ashworth Councillor Darnbrough Councillor Jones Councillor Swift

(b) Service Group 2 (Place) Councillor Irene Davidson Councillor Dearnley Councillor Kerslake Councillor Mills

(c) Service Group 3 (Highways) Councillor Burke Councillor Clegg Councillor Evans Councillor Kelly

At the meeting of the Township Committee held 25th May 2010 it was decided that substitute members of each of the above three Service Groups could be drawn from any other Pennines Township Member.

Version Number: 1 Page: 3 of 5

Page 11

3.6. Other Bodies

Members are requested to consider appointments to the following bodies:-

(a) Ellenroad Trust Limited The Pennines Township Committee is requested to appoint four Trustees to the Ellenroad Trust Limited for 2010/2011. Councillors Irene Davidson, Kelly, Kerslake and Swift were appointed in 2010/2011.

(b) MoorEnd Development Trust The Township Committee is requested to appoint a representative to the Trust’s Committee of Management in compliance with the MoorEnd Development Trust’s Memorandum and Articles of Association, in 2010/2011 this was Councillor Ashworth.

(c) Clean and Green Champion The Township Committee is asked to nominate one Member to serve as the Green Champion. In 2010/2011 Councillor Kerslake was appointed.

(d) Township Older Person’s Champion The Township Committee is requested to appoint one Member to serve as the Township Older Persons Champion. In 2010/2011 this was Councillor Darnbrough

(e) Supporting People Programme The Township Committee is asked to nominate two Members to the Supporting People Programme, in 2010/2011 this was Councillors Kerslake and Jones.

(f) Visit Rochdale Borough Group The Township Committee is asked to appoint one Member to the Visit Rochdale Borough Group, and in 2010/2011 Councillor Swift was appointed.

(g) Community Safety – Township Tactical Group – Pennines Township Committee is asked to determine whether or not it would wish to appoint one representative to the Township Tactical Group. The Group meets every six weeks and looks to identify hot spots of crime and anti social behaviour in the Township and adopt a multi agency approach to respond. If the Committee wish to have a representative, they are invited to nominate one Member of the Committee.

(h) Township Health and Wellbeing Partnership The Township Committee is asked to appoint one Member per Ward and a substitute Member to the Township Health and Wellbeing Partnership.

Appointments made in 2010/2011 were as follows: -

Ward Member Substitute Member

Wardle and West Councillor Darnborough Councillor Dearnley Littleborough

Milnrow and Newhey Councillor Swift Councillor Irene Davidson

Littleborough Lakeside Councillor Jones Councillor Mills

Smallbridge and Firgrove Councillor Kerslake Councillor Ashworth

Version Number: 1 Page: 4 of 5

Page 12

4. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

4.1 There are no financial implications to this report.

5. LEGAL IMPLICATIONS

5.1 The appointment of Sub-Committees is required to enable the undertaking of delegated function and the Constitution of the Council requires the Township Committee to appoint Chairs and Vice Chairs of Sub-Committees.

6. PERSONNEL IMPLICATIONS

6.1 There are no personnel implications to this report.

7. RISK ASSESSMENT IMPLICATIONS

7.1 Not applicable.

8. EQUALITIES IMPACTS

8.1 Appointments to Sub-Committees are undertaken in line with statutory and local requirements.

Background P apers Document Place of Inspection Service Director’s Office Legal and Democratic Services a. Rochdale MBC’s Constitution Town Hall b. Previous minutes of Pennines Pennines Township Committee (25 th May 2010 OL16 1AB and 11 th January 2011)

Version Number: 1 Page: 5 of 5

Page 13 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 14 Agenda Item 12

REPORT FOR DECISION

Agenda item no:

Pennines Township Committee 24th May 2011

Report of the Service Director for Legal & Democratic

PENNINE TOWNSHIP COMMITTEE SUB-COMMITTEE AND DELEGATON ARRANGEMENTS 2011/12

Wards affected: All Report Author: Michael Garraway

Telephone: (01706) 924716

The Committee is invited to confirm its Sub-Committee structure and arrangements for 2011/12

It is recommended that 1.1 The Sub-Committee structure of the Pennines Township Committee, comprising the Pennines Township Delegated Sub-Committee, the Pennines Township Planning Sub-Committee, and the Pennines Township Fund Sub-Committee be confirmed. 1.2 The delegation arrangements to the Pennines Township Delegated Sub- Committee, as contained within the Scheme of Delegation to Township Committees, be noted. 1.3 The delegation arrangements to the Pennines Township Planning Sub- Committee, as contained within the Development Control Scheme, be noted. 1.4 The delegation arrangements to the Pennines Township Fund Sub-Committee, as contained within the Scheme of Delegation to Township Committees, be noted.

2. Reasons for recommendation: 2.1 The recommendations are presented to enable the Committee to confirm its delegated decision making arrangements for the 2011/12 municipal year prior to the making of appointments to Sub-Committees.

3. Alternatives and Risks considered: 3.1 The Committee needs to confirm delegation arrangements to ensure that decisions are made in accordance with relevant statutory and procedural requirements.

Page 1 of 2

Page 15 4. Consultation undertaken/proposed: 4.1 None

5. Pennines Township Sub-Committees: 5.1 Pennines Township Delegated Sub-Committee - the Sub-Committee currently exercises a small range of formal powers derived from the Scheme of Delegation as an 'urgency' Committee for the Township Committee. It is therefore recommended that the Committee notes the powers of the Sub-Committee as contained in the Scheme of Delegation to Township Committees.

5.2 Pennines Township Planning Sub-Committee - the Sub-Committee works to a delegation scheme contained within the Council's Development Control Scheme, and powers are directly delegated by Council to the Sub-Committee. It is therefore recommended that the Committee notes the powers of the Sub- Committee as contained in the Development Control Scheme.

5.3 Pennines Township Fund Sub-Committee - the Sub-Committee exercises delegated powers, as contained in the Scheme of Delegation to Township Committees, for making grant approvals and decisions on devolved budgets and Township Funds.

6. Financial Implications: 6.1 There are no direct financial implications contained within this report.

7. Conclusion 7.1 The Committee is asked to consider and confirm its Sub-Committee structure for the 2011/12 municipal year.

For further information and background papers: For further information about this report or access to any background papers please contact , Committee Services Section, PO Box 15, Town Hall, Rochdale OL16 1AB Tel: (01706) 92 4707

Linda Fisher Service Director Legal & Democratic Services

Page 2 of 2

Page 16 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 17 Page 18 Agenda Item 13

REPORT FOR DECISION

Agenda item no:

Pennines Township Committee 24 May 2011

Report of the Director of Highways

BUCKLEY LANE/MILLGATE – OBJECTIONS TO PROPOSED NO RIGHT TURN ORDER

Wards affected: Smallbridge and Firgrove Report Author: Chris Thompson

Telephone: (01706) 924591

This report is to advise Members of objections received to the proposed Traffic Regulation Order to prohibit a right-turn manoeuvre out of Buckley Lane/Millgate onto Halifax Road, Smallbridge.

1. It is recommended that: 1.1 The Committee considers whether the proposed Traffic Regulation Order Borough of Rochdale (Millgate/Buckley Lane, Rochdale) (Prohibition of Right turn) Order outlined in Section 5.8 of this report be implemented.

1.2 It should be noted that in considering the report, the proposed Order is deemed strategic in nature and should be dealt with in accordance with Section F2 of the Scheme of Delegation to Township Committee. Committee has delegated power to confirm the proposals and the Order. However, if the Committee wish not to confirm the proposals and the Order, the matter must be referred to Cabinet for decision.

2. Reasons for recommendation: 2.1 A decision needs to be made in respect of the objections received so that the scheme can be progressed and the new restrictions introduced. To provide safer control of vehicular movements at the above junctions it is necessary to introduce the new traffic orders.

3. Alternatives considered: 3.1 The alternative to the proposals outlined in this report is to not introduce a prohibition of right-turn Traffic Regulation Order from Buckley Lane/Millgate onto Halifax Road.

Buckley Lane/Millgate – Proposed No Right Turn TRO – Report to Committee Page 1 of 7

Page 19 4. Consultation undertaken: 4.1 Statutory consultation has taken place, in that, notices of intention to make the Orders have been posted on site and published in the local newspaper on the 13 th of October 2010 and notices have been served on consultees. In addition to the above, leaflets were hand-delivered to 454 properties affected by the proposed No Right-turn order.

5. Background: 5.1 Halifax Road is a 40mph dual carriageway with 2 lanes in each direction. Traveling in a north easterly direction towards Littleborough, the carriageway narrows down to one inside lane just after its junction with Buckley Lane by the introduction of merge arrows and hatched carriageway markings to the outside lane.

5.2 Buckley Lane and Millgate are single carriageway roads with a speed limit of 30 mph;

5.2.1 Buckley Lane provides the main direct access/egress to a large residential area comprising some 400 dwellings and also a primary school, day nursery and library. There is an alternative non direct access/egress through Buckley Hall Industrial Estate via Red Lane, Foxholes Road and Buckley Road although this has a 6’ 6” width restriction at the northerly end of Buckley Lane to restrict Heavy Goods Vehicles and other large vehicles.

5.2.2 Millgate provides the only access to a residential area comprising some 50 dwellings and also a primary school and a few light industrial works.

5.3 Visibility is restricted at both Buckley Lane and Millgates’ junction with Halifax Road for vehicles; i) travelling south westbound along Halifax Road towards Rochdale, ii) turning left out of Buckley Lane onto Halifax Road (compromised by vehicles waiting to turn right), iii) vehicles exiting Millgate onto Halifax Road (due to the brow of the hill on Halifax Road).

5.4 Currently there are no pedestrian crossing facilities located at the junction of Halifax Road with Buckley Lane and Millgate. There are two subways nearby, one located on Halifax Road just north of Albert Royds Street roundabout and one located on Halifax Road between Spring Mill Walk and Wardle Road mini roundabout. However, these are not well used due to fears of personal safety.

5.5 Between January 2005 and December 2009 there have been a total of 21 personal injury accidents resulting in 28 casualties. Of these accidents 9 have involved vehicles turning right or waiting to turn right.

5.6 The aims and objectives of the restrictions are to prohibit vehicular movements that have been shown to be problematic. Of particular concern are the number of right turning accidents and rear end shunts.

5.7 The introduction of central islands on Buckley Lane and Millgate at their junctions with Halifax Road and extension to the existing central reserve on Halifax Road has been proposed to address the key issues of the junction. This proposal to

Buckley Lane/Millgate – Proposed No Right Turn TRO – Report to Committee Page 2 of 7

Page 20 prevent right turn manoeuvres out of Buckley Lane and Millgate will increase safety at the junction.

5.8 In Order to effect the proposals described above the Director of Highways proposes to amend the Borough of Rochdale (Millgate/Buckley Lane, Rochdale) (Prohibition of Right turn) Order by inserting the following:-

Prohibition of right turn - Halifax Road, Smallbridge and Firgrove Ward

(i) right turn from Millgate onto Halifax Road (ii) right turn from Buckley Lane onto Halifax Road

A plan showing the proposals is attached to this report (Appendix A).

6. Report: 6.1 Leaflets were hand delivered to 454 properties in the area as shown on the plan which accompanies this report.

The Director of Highways, Impact Partnership has responded to the issues raised and his responses are detailed in Section 8 of this Report.

7. Letters of Objection: 7.1 There were a total of 10 objections received to the proposed scheme before the end of the objection period.

7.2 Objection

7.2.1 Four objectors questioned whether the junction should be signalised

7.2.2 Objections were received from:

Mr Wasim Hussain - [email protected]

M Gulzeb - 11 Stonie Heys Avenue , Rochdale , OL12 9XA

Gulnawaz Hussain - 32 Buckley View , Rochdale , OL12 9EA

Nadeem Khan - 35 Stonie Heys Avenue , Smallbridge , OL12 9XA

7.2.3 Response of the Director of Highways and Engineering

Signalisation of the junction was one of the options considered following a report commissioned by Impact Partnership in 2009. It was decided in November 2009, however, at the Pennines Township Committee that the proposals advertised as part of this proposed traffic order, be implemented.

Buckley Lane/Millgate – Proposed No Right Turn TRO – Report to Committee Page 3 of 7

Page 21 7.3 Objection

7.3.1 Four objectors suggested the speed limit should be reduced.

7.3.2 Objections were received from:

M Gulzeb - 11 Stonie Heys Avenue , Rochdale , OL12 9XA

Ghulam Rasool – 22 Ditton Mead Close, Smallbridge, Rochdale OL12 9SH

Miss Debra Butterworth - 88 Lorne Street , Smallbridge , Firgrove , OL12 9RS

Nadeem Khan - 35 Stonie Heys Avenue , Smallbridge , OL12 9XA

7.3.3 Response of the Director of Highways and Engineering

This option on its own does not solve the concerns outlined previously that the proposal is attempting to address. The Council has carried out an extensive review of the speed limits throughout the borough as requested by central Government. The current speed limit has been shown to be appropriate.

7.4 Objection

7.4.1 The introduction of the right turn ban will result in a detour and hence an increase in journey times/petrol usage.

7.4.2 Objections were received from:

J M D Bateman - 10 Kentmere Avenue , Smallbridge , Firgrove , OL12 9EE

Afzal Majid - 23 Stonie Heys Avenue , Smallbridge , Rochdale , OL12 9XA

Gulnawaz Hussain - 32 Buckley View , Rochdale , OL12 9EA

Miss Debra Butterworth - 88 Lorne Street , Smallbridge , Firgrove , OL12 9RS

Mr Mohammed Bashir - 73 Armstrong Hurst Close, Rochdale, OL12 9XB

7.4.3 Response of the Director of Highways and Engineering

The impact on the length of journeys is likely to be small. The scheme is proposed however to reduce the number of accidents at this point, not to shorten journey times. The added length to a journey from Buckley Lane is approximately 800 metres. The added length to a journey from Millgate is approx 600 metres. The ‘penalty’ in terms of time or petrol usage is negligible.

Buckley Lane/Millgate – Proposed No Right Turn TRO – Report to Committee Page 4 of 7

Page 22 7.5 Objection

7.5.1 The number of accidents recorded is not high enough to warrant the proposals.

7.5.2 Objections were received from:

Gulnawaz Hussain - 32 Buckley View , Rochdale , OL12 9EA

Miss Debra Butterworth - 88 Lorne Street , Smallbridge , Firgrove , OL12 9RS

Nadeem Khan - 35 Stonie Heys Avenue , Smallbridge , OL12 9XA

7.5.3 Response of the Director of Highways

The ‘intervention level’ for accidents, at which point the Council’s Road Safety Team would look to investigate with a view to providing a solution, is 6 accidents over a 3 year period.

Between January 2005 and December 2009 there have been a total of 21 accidents in which personal injury was recorded equating to 28 casualties. This is clearly above the ‘intervention level’. Of these 21 recorded accidents, 9 (43%) involved vehicles turning right or waiting to turn right. Halifax Road is a dual carriageway with a speed limit of 40 mph. Vehicles making right turn manoeuvres out of Buckley Lane and Millgate have to negotiate two lanes of traffic. The difficulty of the right-turn manoeuvre is added to by the number of movements a driver has to take into account when making the turn – the two Littleborough lanes merging at the junction, vehicles turning into/out of Buckley Lane and the two Rochdale bound lanes of traffic.

Drivers entering/leaving Buckley Lane and Millgate failing to accurately judge the speed of oncoming traffic heading towards Littleborough can be seen as another contributory factor to the number of accident recorded.

7.6 Objection

7.6.1 It will be a tight manoeuvre to get around the roundabout at the bottom of Wardle Road.

7.6.2 Objection received from:

Mr Wasim Hussain Sent via email - [email protected]

7.6.3 Response of the Director of Highways and Engineering

An Autotrack swept path (computer program using real world measurements and vehicles) indicates a rigid goods vehicle is able to make a u-turn at the roundabout at the bottom of Wardle Road. The manoeuvre would be more difficult for a Heavy Goods Vehicle.

Buckley Lane/Millgate – Proposed No Right Turn TRO – Report to Committee Page 5 of 7

Page 23 7.7 Objection

7.7.1 The proposal would impede access to and from business diverting trade away

7.7.2 Objection received from:

Mr John Paul Tattersall - Halifax Road Service Station , Halifax Road , Rochdale , OL16 2NT

7.7.3 Response of the Director of Highways and Engineering

There is no evidence to suggest this is the case. Preventing traffic from turning right out of Buckley Lane is not likely to be to the detriment of a business. Buckley Lane serves residential properties, most of which will be aware of the location of the business they wish to visit. Existing or new customers are unlikely to be put off by the introduction of a traffic order.

7.8 Comment from objectors

7.8.1 What provision is there for the Emergency Services?

7.8.2 Response of the Director of Highways

As part of the process of promoting the legal order the Emergency Services and Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive are consulted. They have all given their approval to the proposals. The above were consulted in May 2010 at the monthly Traffic Management Unit meeting. The Emergency Services and GMPTE are always consulted before a proposed traffic order is advertised. Emergency vehicles are exempt from all traffic orders.

7.9 Comment from objectors

7.9.1 Put in a grid (box junction) marking

7.9.2 Response of the Director of Highways

The traffic order proposed as part of this scheme is related to issues of safety involving right-turning vehicles. The issue to be addressed is not of obstruction of the junction.

7.10 Comment from objectors

7.10.1 People will ‘rat run’ down Buckley Road/Red Lane

7.10.2 Response of the Director of Highways

The purpose of the proposed traffic order as part of this scheme is to improve road safety and reduce the number of recorded accidents.

7.11 Comment from objectors

7.11.1 At peak times, traffic will block the nearside lane not allowing other traffic to turn left out of Buckley Lane

Buckley Lane/Millgate – Proposed No Right Turn TRO – Report to Committee Page 6 of 7

Page 24 7.11.2 Response of the Director of Highways

7.11.3 Traffic turning left out of Buckley Lane onto Halifax Road is a simpler and safer manoeuvre than a vehicle turning right out of Buckley Lane. If the nearside lane of traffic is stationary, then a driver wishing to turn right out of Buckley Lane has a severely restricted view of oncoming traffic approaching in the off-side lane from the Albert Royds Street roundabout. At this junction, Halifax Road is split into 2 lanes. This increases the likelihood of an accident from a vehicle in the off-side lane colliding with a vehicle crossing both lanes of Halifax Road while attempting to turn right out of Buckley Lane.

The contributory factors to the recorded accidents include heavy traffic flows along Halifax Road leading to drivers feeling pressured into turning across two lanes of traffic.

9. EQUALITIES IMPACTS: 9.1 There are no (significant) workforce equality issues arising from this report.

10 LEGAL IMPLICATIONS: 10.1 Legal have been consulted and there are no issues in this matter.

11. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: 11.1 None

12. Conclusions: Committee is asked to decide whether or not to implement the proposals set out at paragraph 5.8 of this report.

For further information and background papers: For further information about this report or access to any background papers please contact Chris Thompson Tel: (01706) 924591.

Director of Highways Municipal Offices Floor 3 Smith Street Rochdale OL16 1LX

Buckley Lane/Millgate – Proposed No Right Turn TRO – Report to Committee Page 7 of 7

Page 25 Page 26 Agenda Item 14

REPORT FOR DECISION

Agenda item no:

Pennines Township Committee 24 th May 2011

Report of the Service Director – Highways & Engineering Service

MILNROW TOWN CENTRE & ADJACENT STREETS PROPOSED NEW WAITING RESTRICTIONS & REVOCATION OF WAITING RESTRICTIONS.

Wards affected: Milnrow & Newhey and Report Author: John Kearns Smallbridge & Firgrove Telephone: (01706) 924533

This report is to advise Members of objections received to the proposed introduction of new Waiting Restrictions and Revocation of existing Waiting Restrictions in Milnrow Town Centre and adjacent streets, to present the response of the Director of Highways, Strategy and Policy to the objections received and to ask Members to decide whether the recommendations should or should not be implemented.

1. It is recommended that:

1.1 The Committee considers whether the Borough of Rochdale ((Civil Enforcement of Traffic Contraventions) (Various Streets) (Pennine Township) Order 2008) (Amendment) (No 19) Order relating to Milnrow Town Centre and adjacent streets, as outlined in paragraph 6 and Appendix ‘A’ of this report should be implemented.

1.2 It should be noted that in considering the report, the proposed Order is deemed strategic in nature and should be dealt with in accordance with Section F2 of the Scheme of Delegation to Township Committee. Committee has delegated power to confirm the proposals and the Order. However, if the Committee wish not to confirm the proposals and the Order, the matter must be referred to cabinet for decision.

2. Reasons for recommendation:

2.1 A decision needs to be made in respect of the objections received so that the scheme can be progressed and the new restrictions introduced.

1

Page 27 3. Alternatives considered:

3.1 To retain the existing waiting restrictions through the town centre. However, to strike a balance between the demand for on-street parking and the need to keep unobstructed two-way traffic along the main thoroughfares, it is considered necessary to introduce the new restrictions.

4. Consultation undertaken:

4.1 In accordance with statutory procedures, Notice of the proposals was advertised in the Rochdale Observer on 16 th February 2011. Notices were also served on statutory consultees and were posted on site on 16 th February 2011 on all roads affected by the proposals and copies of the relevant documents were made available in Council Offices.

5. Background and Outcome of the Review:

5.1 The Impact Partnership was requested by the Pennine Township to carry out a comprehensive review of the current waiting restrictions in Milnrow Town Centre and adjacent streets to address the various needs of the local highway network.

5.2 After consultation with the local Ward Councillors a scheme has been produced that strikes a balance between the demand for on–street parking and the need to keep unobstructed two-way traffic along the main thoroughfare.

5.3 To simplify the content of this report, the full schedule of waiting restrictions together with plans showing their locations are enclosed in Appendix ‘A’. The waiting restrictions which are subject to objections are also included with the objections in paragraph 6.

5.4 In Milnrow Town Centre there is considerable demand for on-street parking on Dale Street and Newhey Road for the shop and business premises. There is also a demand for on-street parking for residents on Newhey Road.

5.5 Coupled with this the “Kiln Lane, Bridge Street, Elizabethan Way” and “Kiln Lane, Dale Street, Newhey Road, Elizabethan Way” routes are very busy thoroughfares. This is particularly the case at morning and evening peak hours, not only for the considerable amount of local traffic but also for the large amount of traffic emanating from the Todmorden and Littleborough areas gaining access to and from the motorway network.

5.6 The proposed ‘At any time’ waiting restrictions will stop indiscriminate parking, keeping junctions clear of parked vehicles and allowing free flow of traffic in both directions.

5.7 The one and two hour ‘limited waiting’ will cater for the demand of drivers using the local shops and businesses’, ensuring that parking space is always freely available.

2

Page 28 5.8 The 30 minute short stay ‘limited waiting’ in the Kiln Lane Service Road adjacent to the Bobbin Public House will cater for the demand of drivers frequenting the hot food take-a-ways.

5.9 Regulating the parking will ensure footways are kept clear of vehicles and will ensure clear sight lines are retained for both pedestrians and drivers. This will enhance road safety and consequently reduce the risk of accident and injury.

5.10 The amendments to the waiting restrictions on Kiln Lane between the Gallows Public House and Crossgates Primary School will cater for the parking demand of the Public House whilst keeping the highway clear of parked vehicles during the school opening and closing hours.

6 Objections received and related responses of the Director of Highways:

6.1 Four letters of objection have been received from Mr. David F Collinge of 5 Timms Terrace, Milnrow, OL16 4DY, Mr. H Muncaster of 1 Smith Hill, Milnrow, OL16 3JU, Mr. Marc, Mr. Christian & Mrs. Sandra Jaruszek of 2 Stone Street, Milnrow, Rochdale, OL16 4JA and Mr. K & Mrs. C Crombie of 6 Stone Street, Milnrow, Rochdale, OL16 4JA.

The letters from No 2 and 6 Stone Street both had a petition of support from ten local neighbours.

6.2 Issues Raised by Mr. David F Collinge of 5 Timms Terrace, Milnrow, OL16 4DY.

6.2.1 The proposed Orders shown below are those relating to the street location where the objection relates:-

Proposed No Waiting At Any Time

Harbour Lane North, Milnrow and Newhey Ward

both sides from its junction with Bridge Street to a point 169 metres north west of its junction with Whitworth Street.

Revocation of No Waiting, Mon – Sat, 8am – 6pm

Harbour Lane North, Milnrow and Newhey Ward

both sides from its junction with Bridge Street to a point 15 metres south of the northerly gable of Renold's (105 metres).

6.2.2 Mr. Collinge strongly objects to the double yellow lines proposed on the short link road between Harbour Lane North and the courtyard at Tim’s Terrace. He says that the existing single yellow lines terminate about 20 metres before the courtyard entrance and have always worked fine. This short stretch of road does not contribute to being a hazard or obstruction on Harbour Lane North. He says

3

Page 29 that waiting restrictions to the front and rear of his property would totally hem him in.

6.2.3 Response of the Director of Highways:

Strictly speaking, the short stretch of road between Harbour Lane North and the courtyard at Tim’s Terrace is not part of Harbour Lane North; therefore the double yellow lines can be left off this length of road without having to amend the proposals. The double yellow lines will then replicate the existing single yellow lines at this location.

6.3 Issues Raised by Mr. H Muncaster of 1 Smith Hill, Milnrow, OL16 3JU,

6.3.1 The proposals shown below are those relating to the street location where the objection relates:-

Proposed No Waiting At Any Time

Smith Hill, Milnrow and Newhey Ward

the north westerly side from a point 34 metres north east of its junction with Dale Street to a point 25 metres south of its junction with Major Street.

the south easterly side from its junction with Harmony Street for a distance of 65 metres in a northerly direction.

6.3.2 Mr. Muncaster reverses his car out of his drive using the full width of Smith Hill. He is concerned that the cars displaced by the new double yellow lines could then park directly opposite No 1 and No 3 Smith Hill making his exit difficult or impossible.

6.3.3 Response of the Director of Highways:

At present, there are double yellow lines on both sides of Smith Hill between Dale Street and Harmony Street/Schofield Close.

A few vehicle owners shopping or working in the town centre presently park on Smith Hill just above Harmony Street around a sharp bend in the road. This has resulted in some local residents complaining about the danger it creates and the possibility of a vehicular collision.

Vehicles heading downhill towards Dale Street have to go onto the off-side of the road through the bend to pass the parked vehicles, which conflicts with any vehicles heading uphill from Dale Street. The sharp bend in the road offers poor sight lines and increases the risk of an accident or injury at this point. The Highways & Engineering Service therefore recommends that the double yellow lines should be introduced.

If the proposed double yellow lines on the opposite side to No’s 1 and 3 Smith Hill were extended by an extra 20 metres, it would overcome Mr. Muncaster’s issue of exiting the driveway.

4

Page 30 6.4 Issues Raised by Mr. Marc, Mr. Christian & Mrs. Sandra Jaruszek of 2 Stone Street, Milnrow, Rochdale, OL16 4JA

6.4.1 The proposed Orders shown below are those relating to the street location where the objection relates:- Proposed No Waiting At Any Time

Stone Street, Milnrow and Newhey Ward

the north westerly side from its junction with Newhey Road for a distance of 35 metres in a south westerly direction.

the south easterly side from its junction with Newhey Road for a distance of 44 metres in a south westerly direction.

Proposed No Waiting, Mon–Sat, 8am–6pm

Stone Street, Milnrow and Newhey Ward

the north westerly side from a point 35 metres south west of its junction with Newhey Road to its junction with Stonefield Street.

Revocation of No Waiting, Mon – Sat, 8am – 6pm

Stone Street, Milnrow and Newhey Ward

the north side from its junction with Newhey Road to its junction with Stonefield Street.

the south side from its junction with Newhey Road to a point 11 metres west of its junction with Newhey Road.

6.4.2 The above residents object to the double yellow lines proposed opposite No’s 2 to 8 Stone Street between the entrance to the Pennine Precinct car park and the service road to the rear of the precinct.

They say it would result in the loss of 4/5 parking spaces on the street which are used constantly by residents and business users in the area. This would put even more pressure on the poor parking provision in the area and leave nowhere for the residents of No’s 2 to 8 Stone Street to park during the hours of 8am to 6pm, due to the single yellow line already outside their properties.

The residents say that the problem of access to the street during the day is due to poor enforcement of the current parking restrictions outside No’s 2 to 8 Stone Street and up to the junction with Newhey Road. If no vehicles park there during the day then access is not a problem even for the lorries making deliveries to the service bay at the rear of the precinct. The parking problems are sometimes caused by blue badge holders, who find it easier to park on the single yellow lines rather than try and park on the precinct car park.

5

Page 31 As residents of Stone Street, they have noticed that the lorries making deliveries are getting far too large for the residential street and say that the Council need to suggest more moderate sized vehicles be used for deliveries to these smaller shops.

They say that if the proposed double yellow lines go ahead against their wishes, then they would look to the Council to provide resident permit holder only parking as has been introduced around the train station in Rochdale.

6.4.3 Response of the Director of Highways:

The new waiting restrictions have been proposed in order to satisfy our duties to maintain the safe and unobstructed movement of vehicles along the public highway. However, the objection period has identified some concerns of local residents with regard to parking during the working day. There is an obvious issue on Stone Street between the parking needs of the residents and the access needs for shoppers and delivery vehicles to the shops and general vehicular access to Stonefield Street and the Health Centre. If the proposed waiting restrictions are put in place, the residents are penalised with the removal of the only day time parking opposite No’s 2 to 8 Stone Street.

If nothing is done, then access to the precinct service bay and to Stonefield Street and the Health Centre is severely restricted.

In light of the objections received, a possible compromise solution to the residents’ concerns may be to introduce the following restrictions (see enclosed Appendix ‘B’ - plan No H60/1055/7):-

• Remove the proposed double yellow lines on the south easterly side of Stone Street between the entrance to the Pennine Precinct car park and the service road to the rear of the precinct (opposite No’s 2 to 8 Stone Street). The other proposed double yellow lines to remain as part of the scheme. • Provide loading/unloading restrictions Monday to Saturday between 8am and 6pm on the north westerly side of Stone Street from Newhey Road to Stonefield Street and on the south easterly side from Newhey Road to the entrance to the precinct car park.

This would keep the north westerly side of Stone Street clear of all parked vehicles, including blue badge holders, Monday to Saturday between 8am and 6pm from Newhey Road to Stonefield Street. It would similarly keep the south easterly side of Stone Street clear of parked vehicles from Newhey Road to the precinct car park entrance.

The existing day time parking opposite No’s 2 to 8 Stone Street would then remain unchanged.

7 Personnel Implications

7.1 None

6

Page 32 8 Financial Implications

8.1 The funding for the scheme will be provided from the Devolved LTP Funding.

9 Legal Implications

9.1 There is nothing further to add to the report

10 Conclusions

10.1 Committee is asked to decide whether or not to implement the proposals set out in paragraph 6 and Appendix ‘A’ to this report.

For further Information and Background Papers: For further information about this report or access to any background papers please contact John Kearns, Engineer, Highways & Engineering Service, Floor 3, Municipal Offices, Rochdale, OL16 1LQ. Tel: (01706) 924533.

7

Page 33 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 34 APPENDIX ‘A’

PROPOSED NEW TRAFFIC REGULATION ORDER

No Waiting At Any Time

Albert Street, Milnrow and Newhey Ward the southerly side from its junction with Charles Lane for a distance of 12 metres in a north easterly direction.

Bentgate Street, Milnrow and Newhey Ward the south easterly side from its junction with Newhey Road for a distance of 30 metres in a south westerly direction. the north westerly side from its junction with Newhey Road for a distance of 24 metres in a south westerly direction.

Bridge Street, Milnrow and Newhey Ward the northerly side from its junction with Shore Street to its junction with Kiln Lane. the southerly side from its junction with Harbour Lane North to its junction with Dale Street.

Bridge Street, Smallbridge and Firgrove Ward the northerly side from its junction with Rochdale Road to its junction with Shore Street. the southerly side from its junction with Elizabethan Way to its junction with Harbour Lane North.

Charles Lane, Milnrow and Newhey Ward the northerly side from its junction with Albert Street for a distance of 41 metres in a south easterly direction. the southerly side from its junction with Newhey Road to a point 10 metres south east of its junction with Church Terrace.

Dale Street, Milnrow and Newhey Ward the north easterly side from its junction with Kiln Lane to a point 74 metres north west of its junction with Chapel Gate. the north easterly side from its junction with Chapel Gate for a distance of 31 metres in a north westerly direction. the north easterly side from its junction with Chapel Gate for a distance of 47 metres in a south easterly direction. the north easterly side from a point 71 metres south east of its junction with

Page 35 Chapel Gate for a distance of 9 metres in a south easterly direction. the north easterly side from its junction with Smith Hill for a distance of 45 metres in a north westerly direction. the south westerly side from its junction with Bridge Street to its junction with Edmund Street. the south westerly side from its junction with Edmund Street for a distance of 15 metres in a south easterly direction. the south westerly side from a point 24 metres south east of its junction with Edmund Street to a point 76 metres north west of its junction with Whitworth Street. the south westerly side from its junction with Whitworth Street for a distance of 39 metres in a north westerly direction. the south westerly side from its junction with Whitworth Street to a point 108 metres north west of its junction with Station Road. the south westerly side from its junction with Station Road for a distance of 67 metres in a north westerly direction. the south westerly side from its junction with Station Road for a distance of 45 metres in a south easterly direction. the south westerly side from its junction with Leach Street for a distance of 15 metres in a south easterly direction.

Edmund Street, Milnrow and Newhey Ward the north westerly side from its junction with Dale Street for a distance of 16 metres in a south westerly direction. the south easterly side from its junction with Dale Street for a distance of 24 metres in a south westerly direction.

Elizabethan Way, Smallbridge and Firgrove Ward both sides from its junction with Bridge Street for a distance of 25 metres in south easterly direction.

Elizabethan Way, Milnrow and Newhey Ward south westerly side from its junction with Bentgate Street for a distance of 80 metres in a north westerly direction.

Harbour Lane North, Milnrow and Newhey Ward both sides from its junction with Bridge Street to a point 169 metres north west of its junction with Whitworth Street.

Page 36 Kiln Lane, Milnrow and Newhey Ward the north westerly side from its junction with Bridge Street to a point opposite 19 metres north east of its junction with Hurstead Road. the south easterly side from its junction with Dale Street to a point 16 metres south west of its junction with Hurstead Road. the south easterly side from a point 15 metres north east of its junction with Crossgates Road for a distance of 25 metres in a north easterly direction.

Kiln Lane Service Road, Milnrow and Newhey Ward the north easterly side from its junction with Dale Street for a distance of 10 metres in a north westerly direction. the south westerly side from a point 29 metres north west of its junction with Dale Street to its termination in a north westerly direction, a distance of 7 metres.

Ladyhouse Lane, Milnrow and Newhey Ward the north westerly side from a point 15 metres south west of its junction with Lambourne Grove to a point 15 metres north east of its junction with Lambourne Grove.

Lambourne Grove, Milnrow and Newhey Ward the north easterly side from its junction with Ladyhouse Lane to its junction with Tydeman Walk.

Leach Street, Milnrow and Newhey Ward the south easterly side from its junction with Dale Street for a distance of 8 metres in a south westerly direction. the south easterly side from a point 27 metres south west of its junction with Dale Street for a distance of 11 metres in a south westerly direction. the south easterly side from its junction with Stonefield Street to a point 44 metres south west of its junction with Dale Street.

New Street, Milnrow and Newhey Ward the northerly side from its junction with Newhey Road for a distance of 17 metres in a north easterly direction. the southerly side from its junction with Newhey Road to its junction with Clegg Street.

The Central Island situated between Albert Street and Charles Lane at Their junction with Newhey Road, Milnrow and Newhey Ward. for its full circumference.

Page 37 Newhey Road, Milnrow and Newhey Ward the north easterly side from its junction with Charles Lane to its junction with New Street. the north easterly side from its junction with New Street to its junction with Sheriff Street. the north easterly side from its junction with Sheriff Street to its junction with Royds Street. the north easterly side from its junction with Royds Street to a point 193 metres south east of its junction with Royds Street. the north easterly side from a point 25 metres north west of its junction with Bentfield Crescent to a point 130 metres north west of its junction with Bentfield Crescent. the south westerly side from its junction with Stone Street for a distance of 15 metres in a north westerly direction. the south westerly side from a point 72 metres south east of its junction with Stone Street to a point 151 metres south east of its junction with Stone Street. the south westerly side from a point 72 metres north west of its junction with Ladyhouse Lane to a point 126 metres north west of its junction with Ladyhouse Lane. the south westerly side from a point 10 metres north west of its junction with Schofield Street to a point 15 metres south east of its junction with Schofield Street. the south westerly side from a point 45 metres south east of its junction with Schofield Street for a distance of 126 metres in a south easterly direction. the south westerly side from its junction with Bentgate Street for a distance of 126 metres in a south easterly direction.

Rochdale Road, Smallbridge and Firgrove Ward the north easterly side from its junction with Bridge Street to its junction with Whitehead Street. the south westerly side from its junction with Wesley Street to its junction with Moorhouse Fold. the south westerly side from its junction with Moorhouse Fold to its junction with Whitehead Street.

Royds Street, Milnrow and Newhey Ward the westerly side from its junction with Newhey Road for a distance of 10 metres in a northerly direction. the easterly side from its junction with Newhey Road for a distance of 19 metres in a northerly direction.

Page 38 Schofield Close, Milnrow and Newhey Ward both sides from its junction with Smith Hill for a distance of 42 metres in a north westerly direction.

Sheriff Street, Milnrow and Newhey Ward the northerly side from its junction with Newhey Road for a distance 23 metres in an easterly direction. the southerly side from its junction with Newhey Road to its junction with Royds Street.

Shore Street, Smallbridge and Firgrove Ward both sides from its junction with Bridge Street for a distance of 10 metres in a north westerly direction.

Silver Hill, Milnrow and Newhey Ward the north easterly side from its junction with Kiln Lane for a distance of 15 metres in a north westerly direction. the south westerly side from its junction with Kiln Lane to its junction with Lowood Close.

Smith Hill, Milnrow and Newhey Ward the north westerly side from a point 34 metres north east of its junction with Dale Street to a point 25 metres south of its junction with Major Street. the south easterly side from its junction with Harmony Street for a distance of 65 metres in a northerly direction.

Station Road, Milnrow and Newhey Ward the south easterly side from its junction with Dale Street for a distance of 37 metres in a south westerly direction.

Stone Street, Milnrow and Newhey Ward the north westerly side from its junction with Newhey Road for a distance of 35 metres in a south westerly direction. the south easterly side from its junction with Newhey Road for a distance of 44 metres in a south westerly direction.

No Waiting, Mon–Sat, 8am–6pm

Newhey Road, Milnrow and Newhey Ward the westerly side from a point 171 metres south east of its junction with Schofield Street to a point 212 metres south east of its junction with Schofield Street.

Page 39 Stone Street, Milnrow and Newhey Ward the north westerly side from a point 35 metres south west of its junction with Newhey Road to its junction with Stonefield Street.

No Waiting Mon-Fri 8.00-9.30am and 3.00-5.00pm.

Kiln Lane, Milnrow and Newhey Ward the north westerly side from a point 17 metres north east of its junction with Wildhouse Lane to a point 130 metres north east of its junction with Wildhouse Lane.

Waiting Limited Mon-Sat 8am-6pm 1 Hour, No Return Within 1 Hour.

Leach Street, Milnrow and Newhey Ward the south easterly side from a point 8 metres south west of its junction with Dale Street for a distance of 19 metres in a south westerly direction. the south easterly side from a point 38 metres south west of its junction with Dale Street for a distance of 6 metres in a south westerly direction.

Waiting Limited Mon-Sat 8am-6pm 30 mins, No Return Within 1 Hour.

Kiln Lane Service Road, Milnrow and Newhey Ward north easterly side from a point 10 metres north west of its junction with Dale Street to its termination in a north westerly direction, a distance of approx. 29 metres.

Waiting Limited Mon–Sat 8am–6pm 2 Hours, Return Prohibited Within 1 Hour.

Dale Street, Milnrow and Newhey Ward the north easterly side from a point 31 metres north west of its junction with Chapel Gate to a point 74 metres north west of its junction with Chapel Gate. the north easterly side from a point 47 metres south east of its junction with Chapel Gate to a point 64 metres south east of its junction with Chapel Gate. the south westerly side from a point 15 metres south east of its junction with Edmund Street for a distance of 9 metres in a south easterly direction.

No Loading Mon-Fri 8.00-9.30am and 3.00-5.00pm

Kiln Lane, Milnrow and Newhey Ward the north westerly side from a point 17 metres north east of its junction with Wildhouse Lane to a point 130 metres north east of its junction with Wildhouse Lane.

Page 40 School Zigzag Mon-Fri 8am-5pm No Stopping On School Entrance Markings

Kiln Lane, Milnrow and Newhey Ward the northerly side from a point 130 metres north east of its junction with Wildhouse Lane for a distance of 69.12 metres in an easterly direction.

Disabled Parking Place 24hr any day

Dale Street, Milnrow and Newhey Ward the north easterly side from a point 64 metres south east of its junction with Chapel Gate to a point 71 metres south east of its junction with Chapel Gate.

Page 41 PROPOSED REVOCATIONS

No Waiting At Any Time

Bridge Street, Smallbridge & Firgrove Ward

the north side from its junction with Halliwell Street to a point 3 metres east of its junction with Halliwell Street.

the north side from its junction with Halliwell Street to a point 3 metres west of its junction with Halliwell Street.

Harmony Street, Milnrow & Newhey Ward

both sides from its junction with Smith Hill to a point 27 metres north of its junction with Smith Hill.

No Waiting, Mon – Sat, 8am – 6pm

Albert Street, Milnrow and Newhey Ward

the south side from its junction with Charles Lane to a point 13 metres east of its junction with Charles Lane.

Bridge Street, Milnrow and Newhey Ward

the north side from its junction with Kiln Lane to its junction with Shore Street.

the south side from its junction with Harbour Lane North to its junction with Dale Street.

Bridge Street, Smallbridge and Firgrove Ward

the north side from its junction with Shore Street to a point 13 metres west of its junction with Shore Street.

the north side from its junction with Nall Street to its junction with Kiln Lane.

the south side from its junction with Harbour Lane North to its junction with Elizabethan Way.

Charles Lane, Milnrow and Newhey Ward

the north side from its junction with Albert Street to a point 21 metres east of its junction with Albert Street.

the south side from its junction with Newhey Road Access Road to a point 27 metres east of its junction with Newhey Road Access Road.

Dale Street, Milnrow and Newhey Ward

the north-east side from its junction with Smith Hill to a point 45 metres north west of its junction with Smith Hill.

the north-east side from its junction with Kiln Lane to its junction with Chapel

Page 42 Gate.

the north-east side from its junction with Chapel Gate to a point 80 metres south east of its junction with Chapel Gate.

the south-west side from its junction with Station Road to a point 45 metres south-east of its junction with Station Road.

the south-west side from its junction with Leach Street to a point 15 metres south-east of its junction with Leach Street.

the south-west side from its junction with Station Road to a point 67 metres north west of its junction with Station Road.

the south-west side from its junction with Whitworth Street to a point 108 metres north-west of its junction with Station Road.

the south-west side from its junction with Whitworth Street to a point 39 metres north-west of its junction with Whitworth Street.

the south-west side from its junction with Edmund Street to a point 15 metres south-east of its junction with Edmund Street.

the south-west side from its junction with Bridge Street to its junction with Edmund Street.

Edmund Street, Milnrow and Newhey Ward

the east side from its junction with Dale Street to a point 19 metres south-west of its junction with Dale Street.

the west side from its junction with Dale Street to a point 17 metres south-west of its junction with Dale Street.

Harbour Lane North, Milnrow and Newhey Ward

both sides from its junction with Bridge Street to a point 15 metres south of the northerly gable of Renold's (105 metres).

Leach Street, Milnrow and Newhey Ward

the south side from its junction with Dale Street to a point 8 metres west of its junction with Dale Street.

the south side from its junction with Stonefield Street to a point 12 metres east of its junction with Stonefield Street.

New Street, Milnrow and Newhey Ward

the north side from its junction with Newhey Road to a point 17 metres east of its junction with Newhey Road.

the south side from its junction with Newhey Road to its junction with Clegg Street.

Page 43 Newhey Road Central Island (between Albert Street And Charles Lane), Milnrow & Newhey Ward

for its full circumference.

Newhey Road, Milnrow and Newhey Ward

the east side from its junction with Sheriff Street to its junction with Royds Street.

the east side from its junction with Sheriff Street to its junction with New Street.

the east side from its junction with Charles Lane to its junction with New Street.

the south-west side from its junction with Stone Street to a point 15 metres north east of its junction with Stone Street.

Royds Street, Milnrow and Newhey Ward

the east side from its junction with Newhey Road to a point 23 metres north of its junction with Newhey Road.

the west side from its junction with Newhey Road to a point 8 metres north of its junction with Newhey Road.

Sheriff Street, Milnrow and Newhey Ward

the north side from its junction with Newhey Road to a point 16 metres east of its junction with Newhey Road.

the south side from its junction with Newhey Road to a point 14 metres east of its junction with Newhey Road.

Stone Street, Milnrow and Newhey Ward

the north side from its junction with Newhey Road to its junction with Stonefield Street.

the south side from its junction with Newhey Road to a point 11 metres west of its junction with Newhey Road.

No Waiting, Mon – Sat, 8am – 5pm

Kiln Lane, Milnrow and Newhey Ward

the north side from a point 17 metres north east of its junction with Wildhouse Lane to a point 130 metres north east of its junction with Wildhouse Lane.

No Waiting, Mon – Fri, 8am – 6pm

Newhey Road, Milnrow and Newhey Ward

the north-east side from its junction with Royds Street for a distance of 193 metres in a southerly direction.

Page 44 No Waiting Mon-Fri 8.00am-6.30pm And Sat 8.00am-1.00pm

Bentgate Street, Milnrow and Newhey Ward

the east side from its junction with Newhey Road to a point 29 metres south of its junction with Newhey Road.

Bridge Street, Smallbridge and Firgrove Ward

the north side from its junction with Nall Street to its junction with Rochdale Road.

Newhey Road, Milnrow and Newhey Ward

the north east side from a point 25 metres north west of its junction with Bentfield Crescent to a point 130 metres north west of its junction with Bentfield Crescent.

the south west side from its junction with Bentgate Street to a point 126 metres south east of its junction with Bentgate Street.

Rochdale Road, Smallbridge and Firgrove Ward

the north-east side from its junction with Bridge Street to its junction with Whitehead Street.

the west side from its junction with Wesley Street to its junction with Moorhouse Fold.

the west side from its junction with Moorhouse Fold to its junction with Whitehead Street.

Waiting Limited Mon-Sat 8am-6pm 1 Hour, No Return Within 1 Hour

Leach Street, Milnrow and Newhey Ward

the south side from a point 8 metres east of its junction with Dale Street for a distance of 34 metres in an easterly direction.

School Zigzag Mon-Fri 8am-5pm No Stopping On School Entrance Markings

Kiln Lane, Milnrow and Newhey Ward

the north side from a point 130 metres north east of its junction with Wildhouse Lane for a distance of 70 metres in an easterly direction outside Cross Gates Primary School.

Disabled Parking Place 24hr any day

Dale Street, Milnrow and Newhey Ward

the south westerly side from its junction with Beal Terrace to a point 15 metres south east of its junction with Edmund Street.

Page 45 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 46 Page 47

Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council work- ing in partnership with Mouchel Parkman and Agilisys to support regeneration This page is intentionally left blank

Page 48 Page 49

Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council work- ing in partnership with Mouchel Parkman and Agilisys to support regeneration This page is intentionally left blank

Page 50 Page 51

Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council work- ing in partnership with Mouchel Parkman and Agilisys to support regeneration This page is intentionally left blank

Page 52 Page 53

Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council work- ing in partnership with Mouchel Parkman and Agilisys to support regeneration Objection title Number of objections (from 72) Not enough permits for families/visitors 42 Objectors who feel there is no problem 41 Possible charges 26 Not all year round problem 17 Not a 24hr problem 13 Hollingworth Rd/sort Car Parks 12 To Double Yellows lines within the zones 9 Property prices being affected 9 Impact on local businesses 8 Objections to the scheme as a whole 34 Objecting to scheme in a particular zone 37

Page 54 Agenda Item 15

REPORT FOR DECISION

Agenda item no:

Pennines Township Committee 24 May 2011

Report of the Director of Highways

HOLLINGWORTH LAKE AREA – OBJECTIONS TO PROPOSED RESIDENTS’ PERMIT PARKING SCHEME ORDER

Wards affected: Littleborough Lakeside Report Author: Chris Thompson

Telephone: (01706) 924591

This report is to advise Members of objections received to the proposed Traffic Regulation Order for a Residents’ Permit Parking Scheme – various roads in the vicinity of Hollingworth Lake, Littleborough.

1. It is recommended that: 1.1 The Committee considers whether the proposed Traffic Regulation Order Borough of Rochdale ((Civil Enforcement of Traffic Contraventions) (Various Streets) (Pennines Township) Order 2008) (Amendment) (No. 17) Order Hollingworth Lake, Littleborough outlined in Section 5.2 of this report should be implemented.

2. Reasons for recommendation: 2.1 A decision needs to be made in respect of the objections received so that the scheme can be progressed and the new restrictions introduced.

3. Alternatives considered: 3.1 To retain the current restrictions along Milbury Drive and Woodheys Road and to leave the proposed Permit Scheme area with no Traffic Regulation Orders. The amendments to the restrictions on Milbury Drive and Woodheys Road would be necessary should the scheme be approved. To answer the complaints received over the years in relation to indiscriminate parking on residential streets adjacent to Hollingworth Lake it is considered necessary to introduce the proposed scheme and restrictions.

Hollingworth Lake Residents’ Permit Scheme TRO – Report to Committee Page 1 of 9

Page 55 4. Consultation undertaken: 4.1 Statutory consultation has taken place, in that, notices of intention to make the Order have been posted on site and published in the local newspaper on the 22 nd of December 2010 and notices have been served on consultees. In addition to the above, leaflets were hand-delivered to every property (552 in total) within the permit ‘zones’. 4.2 The area covered by the proposed permit scheme has been split into 4 zones to assist in the management should the scheme be approved. It was also considered that there may be less support for the scheme from streets further away from the lake itself. It was felt this would provide a better insight into the parking problems as we move further away from Hollingworth Lake.

5. Background: 5.1 Representations have been made, by local residents, over several years relating to parking around Hollingworth Lake. Chiefly these complaints revolved around visitors to the lake parking within the residential areas. One major concern is the ability of the emergency services to respond to an incident due to indiscriminately parked vehicles blocking residential streets. Residents have requested that a ‘Resident Permit Holders Only’ scheme is introduced.

5.2 In Order to effect the proposals described above the Director of Highways proposes to amend the BOROUGH OF ROCHDALE ((CIVIL ENFORCEMENT OF TRAFFIC CONTRAVENTIONS) (VARIOUS STREETS) (PENNINES TOWNSHIP) ORDER 2008) (AMENDMENT) (NO. 17) ORDER by inserting the following:-

(a) The Resident Permit Parking Scheme will apply on the following highways. This also forms a list of postal addresses of households that may apply to the Council for a Resident/Visitor Permit. Each area will form a zone.

Milbury Drive Area, Littleborough Lakeside Ward • Merlin Close for its entire length • Milbury Drive for its entire length • Woodheys Road for its entire length

Cleggswood Avenue Area, Littleborough Lakeside Ward § Beechwood Avenue for its entire length § Cleggswood Avenue for its entire length § Heald Close for its entire length § Higher Cleggswood Avenue for its entire length § Queens View for its entire length § Woodbank Road from its junction with Cleggswood Avenue to a point 10 metres north-west of its junction with Cleggswood Avenue

Bridge Bank Road Area, Littleborough Lakeside Ward § Bank Close for its entire length § Bridge Bank Road for its entire length § Brown Bank Road from a point 67 metres east of its junction with Brown Lodge Street to its junction with Bridge Bank Road

Hollingworth Lake Residents’ Permit Scheme TRO – Report to Committee Page 2 of 9

Page 56 § Higher Bank Road for its entire length § Highlands for its entire length § Lodge Bank Road for its entire length § Woodbank Road from a point 10 metres north-west of its junction with Cleggswood Avenue to its junction with Bridge Bank Road

Brown Lodge Street Area, Littleborough Lakeside Ward § Abbey Drive for its entire length § Bridgenorth Drive for its entire length § Brown Bank Road from its junction with Brown Lodge Street to a point 67 metres east of its junction with Brown Lodge Street § Brown Lodge Drive for its entire length § Brown Lodge Street for its entire length § Edward Avenue for its entire length § Greenbank Drive for its entire length § Henry Street for its entire length § Lincoln Drive for its entire length

(b) No waiting at any time will be provided at the following junctions to prevent vehicles parking dangerously and contravening The Highway Code:-

Milbury Drive, Littleborough Lakeside Ward § north-westerly side from a point 15 metres north-east of its junction with Woodheys Road to a point 15 metres south-west of its junction with Woodheys Road § south-easterly side from a point 15 metres north-east of its junction with Woodheys Road to a point 15 metres south-west of its junction with Woodheys Road

Woodheys Road, Littleborough Lakeside Ward § both sides from its junction with Milnrow Road for a distance of 15 metres in an south-easterly direction § both sides from its junction with Milbury Drive for a distance of 15 metres in a north-westerly direction

Bridge Bank Road, Littleborough Lakeside Ward § north-westerly side from a point 10 metres north-east of its junction with Brown Bank Road to a point 10 metres south-west of its junction with Brown Bank Road § south-easterly side from a point 10 metres north-east of its junction with Brown Bank Road to a point 10 metres south-west of its junction with Brown Bank Road § north-westerly side from a point 10 metres north-east of its junction with Woodbank Road to a point 10 metres south-west of its junction with Woodbank Road § south-easterly side from a point 10 metres north-east of its junction with Woodbank Road to a point 10 metres south-west of its junction with Woodbank Road

Hollingworth Lake Residents’ Permit Scheme TRO – Report to Committee Page 3 of 9

Page 57 Brown Bank Road, Littleborough Lakeside Ward § both sides from its junction with Bridge Bank Road to a point 10 metres north-west of its junction with Bridge Bank Road § both sides from its junction with Brown Lodge Street to a point 10 metres east of its junction with Brown Lodge Street Brown Lodge Street, Littleborough Lakeside Ward § easterly side from a point 10 metres north of its junction with Brown Bank Road to a point 10 metres south of its junction with Brown Bank Road § westerly side from a point 10 metres north of its junction with Brown Bank Road to a point 10 metres south of its junction with Brown Bank Road

Cleggswood Avenue, Littleborough Lakeside Ward § north westerly side from its junction with Woodbank Road to a point 10 metres south-west of its junction with Woodbank Road § south-easterly side from a point 10 metres south-west of a point opposite the south-westerly kerb-line of Woodbank Road to its junction with Higher Cleggswood Avenue

Higher Cleggswood Avenue, Littleborough Lakeside Ward § north-westerly side from its junction with Woodbank Road to a point 10 metres north-east of its junction with Woodbank Road § south-easterly side from a point 10 metres north-east of a point opposite the north-easterly kerb-line of Woodbank Road to its junction with Cleggswood Avenue

Woodbank Road, Littleborough Lakeside Ward § both sides from its junction with Bridge Bank Road to a point 10 metres south-east of its junction with Bridge Bank Road § north-easterly side from its junction with Higher Cleggswood Avenue to a point 10 metres north-west of its junction with Higher Cleggswood Avenue § south-westerly side from its junction with Cleggswood Avenue to a point 10 metres north-west of its junction with Cleggswood Avenue

6. Report:

6.1 The overall area for consideration for a Residents’ Permit Parking Scheme was split into four zones, namely, Bridge Bank Zone, Brown Lodge Zone, Cleggswood Avenue Zone and Milbury Drive Zones. The names reflecting a larger road within each zone and making the zones easier for residents to recognise. The Director of Highways has received 78 items of correspondence (email/letter/telephone, 72 of which were objections to the scheme (3 wishing to apply for a permit, 2 making comment regarding the scheme but not objecting and 1 supporting the scheme)) and a signed petition containing 28 signatures objecting to the proposals. It should be noted however, that many of the names on the petition match those of individual objectors.

Leaflets were hand delivered to 552 properties within the Hollingworth Lake Scheme area as shown on the plan which accompanies this report. A total of 72 objections (some from the same address) were received before the 28 th of January 2011 (the end of the objection period). Details of numbers of

Hollingworth Lake Residents’ Permit Scheme TRO – Report to Committee Page 4 of 9

Page 58 objections are described below and represented by way of a bar chart attached to this report.

6.2 The 4 zones, Bridge Bank Road Area, Brown Lodge Street Area, Cleggswood Avenue Area and Milbury Drive Area will be referred to as letters detailed below for the purpose of the report and accompanying statistics: Milbury Drive Area – Zone A Cleggswood Avenue Area – Zone B Bridge Bank Road Area – Zone C Brown Lodge Street Area – Zone D

The Director of Highways, Impact Partnership has responded to the issues raised and his responses are detailed in Section 8 of this Report.

7. Letters of Objection: 7.1 A zonal breakdown of the objections is as follows:

Zone A (Milbury Drive Area) – Zero objections from 59 properties.

Zone B (Cleggswood Avenue Area) – 5 objections from 145 properties (3 persons wishing to apply for a permit).

Zone C (Bridge Bank Road Area) – 22 objections from 152 properties.

Zone D (Brown Lodge Street Area) – 34 objections from 196 properties (2 persons not objecting to the scheme).

Table 1.1

Zone No. of properties No. of objections % A (Milbury Drive Area) 59 0 0.00 B (Cleggswood Avenue Area) 145 5 3.45 C (Bridge Bank Road Area) 152 22 14.48 D (Brown Lodge Street Area) 196 34 17.35 Total 552 61

The percentages in the above table indicate the number of objections against the number of properties per zone.

This is a total of 61 objections. The remaining 17 items of correspondence are made up of objections from outside the four zones (11 objections, 3 residents wishing to apply for a permit, 2 passing comment regarding the scheme but not objecting and 1 supporting the scheme).

This gives a total number of objections of 72 to the scheme, 61 of which are from residents inside the proposed zones. The 61 objections from 552 properties expressed as a percentage is 11.05%

Due to the high number of objections, they have been split into 11 categories which best reflect the contents of the objection emails/letters. Hollingworth Lake Residents’ Permit Scheme TRO – Report to Committee Page 5 of 9

Page 59

Table 1.2

Objection category No. of objections (from 72) 1. There not being enough permits for families/visitors 42 2. Objectors who feel there is no problem 41 3. Possible charging for permits 26 4. There is not an all year round problem 17 5. It is not a 24 hour problem 13 6. Hollingworth Rd & other car parks as a solution 12 7. To Double Yellow Lines within the zones 9 8. Property prices being affected 9 9. The impact on local businesses 8 10. Objections to the scheme as a whole 34 11. Objecting to scheme in a particular zone 37

The attached documents (see Appendix A) express the above diagrammatically.

8 Director of Highways response to the objections:

8.1 Response to objections from 42 residents - stating there would not be enough permits provided should the scheme to go ahead: Comments were received with regard to residents and visitors suffering due to 1 household permit and 1 visitor permit being provided.

One major concern is the ability of the emergency services to respond to an incident due to indiscriminately parked vehicles blocking residential streets, consequently residents have requested that a ‘Resident Permit Holders Only’ scheme is introduced. To issue additional permits would simply replace non- residents vehicles with residents’ parking and thus not solving the concerns expressed.

There is a limit to the availability of parking spaces in any particular street. The introduction of a parking scheme should help to stop parking on pavements which restricts access for everyone but particularly the elderly and disabled.

The vast majority of properties in the proposed zones have a driveway or access to off-street parking.

8.2 Response to objections from 41 residents – who state they do not feel there is currently a parking problem:

This objection contradicts the views expressed by residents complaints received in recent years. Local residents have expressed dismay at indiscriminately parked vehicles being parked along residential streets making driving along the highway difficult.

Hollingworth Lake Residents’ Permit Scheme TRO – Report to Committee Page 6 of 9

Page 60

8.3 Response to objections from 26 residents – who are concerned over possible charges for permits in the future:

Should the permit scheme be introduced, there is likely to be no charge initially. However, such a scheme needs to be ‘policed’ otherwise it becomes abused by residents and/or visitors. The idea of the scheme is not to generate revenue as per some of the objections, but to improve the quality of life for residents in providing some exclusivity for them in close proximity to their homes. Many schemes across the country do charge residents for permits. This is to help fund the upkeep of the scheme. The possibility of charging in the future cannot be ruled out.

8.4 Response to objections from 17 residents – who do not feel the problems with parking around Hollingworth Lake are an ‘all year round’ issue:

There are a number of events throughout the year at Hollingworth Lake. The Council is keen to hold/promote events that will potentially bring more visitors to the area. It is possible that more events could be held in the future and it would be impossible to develop a scheme that would only be operative when events were being held.

The very fact that 17 residents have mentioned the problem is not an all year round problem does highlight that a problem exists. A Residents’ Permit Parking Scheme is the only way to regulate parking in a residential area without penalising the residents as with other forms of parking restriction (limited waiting parking bays, for example). There are a variety of events which take place at different times of the year.

8.5 Response to objections from 13 residents who feel the problem is not a 24 hour, 7 day a week problem:

As above.

8.6 Response to objections from 12 residents who wish to see the Hollingworth Road Car Park re-instated/other car parks made more obvious/free of charge (to help alleviate parking problems, perhaps negating the need for a Residents’ Permit Parking Scheme):

The Impact Partnership has recently designed a new signage scheme to provide unambiguous directions to Car Parks in close proximity to Hollingworth Lake. This includes the car park accessed from Hollingworth Road. This will no doubt help to alleviate some of the parking problems seen in the area. Whether the car parks would be free of charge and change from their current status of ‘Pay and Display’ is another matter for discussion. Car Parks need to be maintained to a certain standard, especially in an area which attracts a large number of visitors. Keeping a car park to a certain standard does require an outlay of money at regular intervals.

Hollingworth Lake Residents’ Permit Scheme TRO – Report to Committee Page 7 of 9

Page 61

Details of available off-street parking adjacent to Hollingworth Lake is as follows:

Car Park Number of spaces Lake Bank 90 Hollingworth Lake Visitors Centre 250 Hollingworth Road 250 Total 590

The Car Park at Lake Bank has enough space for 90 vehicles. The Car Park at Hollingworth Country Park holds 250 vehicles. The Car Park accessed from Hollingworth Road also holds 250 vehicles (the above figures provided by Parking Services).

8.7 Response to objections from 9 residents who object to the proposed ‘No Waiting at Any Time’ restrictions as part of the scheme proposals:

Rule Number 243 of The Highway Code states:

‘DO NOT stop or park ‘opposite or within 10 metres (32 feet) of a junction, except in an authorised parking space’.

No-one should park a vehicle in the areas highlighted in yellow on the attached plan, otherwise they would be parked with 10 metres or opposite a junction. While residents wish to park outside their property, doing so in these locations causes a road safety issue for other road users. A Residents Parking Scheme would free up spaces elsewhere.

8.8 Response to objections from 9 residents who are concerned about property prices being affected by the scheme:

There is no evidence to suggest a Residents Only Permit Scheme will negatively affect the value of a property within the permit only zone. If a Residents’ Permit Parking Scheme is justified, then the ability to park near to ones’ property could be seen to increase the attractiveness of an area. Residents do not control the public highway outside their property and therefore they cannot be any part of the property price for something out of their control.

8.9 Response to objections from 8 residents who are concerned about the impact on businesses of the proposed scheme:

There are plans in place to update the signage directing visitors to the three main car parks around Hollingworth Lake. As shown above there is adequate parking facilities to cater for demand at all times, other than exceptional peak times.

8.10 From the total number of objections 34 residents objected to the scheme as a whole.

Hollingworth Lake Residents’ Permit Scheme TRO – Report to Committee Page 8 of 9

Page 62 8.11 There were a total of 37 objections from residents who objected to the proposed scheme in a particular zone.

8.12 Mrs Pountain enclosed a petition headed:-

Residents of Lincoln Drive : Petition against the proposed Hollingworth Lake residents parking scheme.

The petition is signed by 28 people who all live on Lincoln Drive.

9. EQUALITIES IMPACTS: 9.1 There are no (significant) workforce equality issues arising from this report.

10 LEGAL IMPLICATIONS: 10.1 None

11. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: 11.1 None

12. Conclusions: Committee is asked to decide whether or not to implement the proposals set out at paragraph 5.2 of this report.

For further information and background papers: For further information about this report or access to any background papers please contact Chris Thompson Tel: (01706) 924591.

Director of Highways Municipal Offices Floor 3 Smith Street Rochdale OL16 1LX

Hollingworth Lake Residents’ Permit Scheme TRO – Report to Committee Page 9 of 9

Page 63 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 64 ys Ch

El Sub Sta ) m (u th Tank Pa

T r a c KEY Tank k

BRIDGE BANK ROAD AREA

th a P

BROWN LODGE STREET AREA

3 2 1

21 9 k 1 6 c a r E T G D O E L IV LITTLEBOROUGH N R LITTLEBOROUGH W D O Brown Brow Hill 65 R B 7 11

SMITHY BRIDGE SMITHY BRIDGE 5 2 5 1 1 E

IV

5 E R 0 G D D O k L CLEGGSWOOD AVENUE AREA c a N r W 3 7 T O 5 R E h t B a P V J I O H

N R 2 L S T

O D I N

4 8 1 N A V E L 145.7m E I N 3 CN U C E O SL G L ON 7 D 4 D R

IV 4 MP 13 2 O LE

5

0 2 1 8 L N

2 T ra c

MILBURY DRIVEk AREA 4 N D A B

W B R E 4

Y 1 D 1 Posts O R B 5 L IV 4 Y E

T BM 148.87m

R 9 H 3

2 A V B E E A N V I 1 U R 7 ) E D m e B u ( g th X a 7 P A d e F o

R g B

I L

4 d 0 A i r F 5 9

Paragon B 1 E

4 E IV Industrial Estate R Y D E 1

G

The D

9 O 2 D 4 Lodge L 4 N

W 6 R 2

O 2

1 R

B

3

0

5

2 8 NO WAITING AT ANY TIME RESTRICTION

2 Lower Cleggswood

1

4

E V

A I Farm

R

1

2 D

150.9m B 1 1

2 A 2 B ) B B m ath u P E ( th Y Y a 7 P 3 D E

E B R 8

0

I B 3 V 4 YE A Brown Lodge Farm 1 8 D

1 Brown Lodge R 9 y Farm Cottage a

w

b 0 u 1 1 S 3

4 Posts 9

9 1

T

7 0

5 E

2 D 2

E 4 A

1

6 7 2 O S

R

0 H

2

0 The E 5 A LD D L Gables R A N

1 E T 7 N 1 1

S A

6 D 2 9 1 A L

E 8 O 6 1

6 R 29 K H N 5

A 1

3 G 8 B 5 GS 4 E ID m G N 7

9 L D . I A D 1 D L 5 R 1 O HH B M

B G 2 I R 2

5 D H 1

O G

K 1

3 7 2 E 1 4 1

2 L LO 2 N 1 D B 8 G E A

N A

5

B K 1 4 A 4 D N N A K 9 B O R 2 N R O K A K W D N A A R B 1 SMITHY BRIDGE 6 R E

O B D 6

G 0 R H 1 G 5 5 I 3 H R R E 1 1 0 2 5

G 2 E 1 R H

E B 4 E E 4 N 5 E B 3 A W G

N 1

N 1 1 3 I K O V D WO I R B O OD

Smithy Bridge I B V A H 1 4 D N 0 E K R

7 O R 2 A B A D 38 Primary School N AN L 8 D 1 1 K C K 1 R 1

6

1

5

2 H 2 O D BRO A K a T 1 t W 3 SMITHY BRIDGE SMITHY D S

b E

N u N S

1 l S 4 R B E O

A 3

R L 8 N 5 B C 26

2 ROW K A E N 2 BA 1 K T N R O IV K R D N R E OAD B A E B

D

El Sub Sta 5 R 2

H 3 H 0 N T T R S E O E N E

E G A H 1

6 1 E G D A D 4 L

G I O L D

8 C 3 E 1 L 7 R

2 L B O

N D S D 2 E

9 Turner

W 4 D 4 I 1 0

O 41 House R

R W B 5 B 2 1

E A 2 D 26

W 1 8 A R R D

1 1 1 1

A D E V 1 E 9 8 N U 152.7m D E G A A

2 O

H 14

1 I 3 G

D 6 HE V K R R

I

1 4 AN C

B

E E R

L a

G 7 m

4 1

3 g n

9 i ID p O o 11 l

R B C S T B Smithy T

PH EE S S 8 7

R 4

T 1 L Y S

Y R E 4 Bridge EN Playing Field 6 R H E H

IG N 2 G H E

R

1 E 2 5 C 7 G L H E G G S S 1 W 150.0m 6 ) 3 m O 2 172.8m u ( O h t WD a WR P A

IGLEY PLAC V

2 E E 2

Smithy Bridge 4 ON U

BM 157.08m E

2 2

Methodist 4 O Church VE 55 155.1m D SMITHY BRID PO

GE RO 65 AD 67 1

69 A 1 TCB 71 A

1 LB 5

3 3 8 V 157.0m E S 2 M

U IT 83 E 4 8 H K N Y Ellens E AN

V 1 B

6 5

Place 1 4 5 0

A 6 a

6

0 Y 2 1 6

E 1 E

6

L t 8 K e 0 7 A e

r L

S t

95

6 S 2

6

4 2 M k 9

L a 7 D O

2 A 1 7 2 99 W

O h 01 at 1 € P B 9 Ro 5 berts to

4

Pla B 7

1 E c M e 6 5 8 1 60

.8 3 E 8 3 m O 5 C B E 1 HEC 3

HW 2 WO OD 10 A 1 V 1 5 O E 1 2 N U 9 O E 4 D D A SW 7

4

3

O 7 El Sub Sta 6 A E

R U 1 1 V 4 3 G N E 1 E 15 G G V E A L C D

2 5

E 1 O

19

L 1 6 O 1

T 4 6

1 9

1 W T 3 I Library S

L EG

6 G 2 3 6 4

1 G Hollingworth Lake Country Park

2

5 E 2 1 8 2 L L 5 B E W C

R V IL I 8

E L 1 N O 1 T R W W R C 1

O D I 2

O S 7

0

1 E 2

1 D C S 1 L L

O 164.3m

1 S E 9 E 2 R Slipway U

E HOLLINGWORTH 3 Kenmoor A 2 B U

L 3 S N M 3 E I 3

4 T TCB

9 4 4 V R H 1 A Y 2 B 9 K Y R Car Park 4 R I 24 4a I D

U G 3 C E 1 B D 3 PC k L S R c 1 N a

O r E 7

E T

2 A 8

7 T G

D 2

5 G 1 QUEENS8 a F t G S A b 42 A u S S H

l 7 2 W 2 E S 2 E L O AU R 6 8 E O 3 B 2 VIEW 2 LS 5 D D ENS 2 t R QUE V

e I IE 9 V

e E 1

7 W

3 r 3 t

S Garage

9

y 5 8 2 E

3 8 a 2

K SMITHY BRIDGE

LITTLEBOROUGH3 LITTLEBOROUGH ORTH Slipway

2 LINGW Boat House 1 HOL

0 6 3 t 3 Lakeside e e K tr 5 S l il 1 8 2 M 3 B 1 R 57

1 A Car Park O K A t T

Lakeside 8 D S 3

F ll 9 LA LITTLE CLEGG IE i U 3 Garage

M 2 R 3

8 L

L 4 E 3 D L 1

S 16

1 7

A D D 1 BM 170.08m 9 R R 1 I IV 1

V 4 E Slipway

E 4 1 25 V E U 171.9m

7

1

S N 2 2 0 H E E A 2 2 7 V E F 1 S T A Boat House

O E LB

4 2

D 2

9 L S 3 D

A 1 5 7 C 6 B O 1 4 O U Y 4 R E R O

5 Y

G H W 5 0

4 T 1 G A 1 S

U 81 E V 2 Slipway

L D O E 4 G

C A S N G

4 4 U K E O SM E L E L N R R IT T H A SMITHY BRIDGE SMITHY Y C

E s

IT 5 B B t 1 R s

O I o

L G 2 D E P

2 G 18 2 E 3 K D D R 1 I A O 1 A

AD L R 9 E D Slipway

L O 0 C 1 A 171.6m 9

9 1

4 5 1

2 1 O

3

191

6 1 R

1

2 BM 173.42m Hollingworth Lake Sailing Club E l 6 1 S u b S ta 1 1 W 1 H

IT

8

T 6

1

1 A 9 K E R D R 30 IV C E LO SE The Beach

5 173.4m 11 Posts

1 4 9 Tavern N I (PH) 6 L 1 WOR R C DS E L M O WORT S

H C E

3 6 RE

SC 1 4

8 1 EN T N 2 I

2 0

L 1 6 D 4

1 A

5 3 2

LITTLE CLEGG O R

2 R

1 1

W 3 E

O

2 5 R

LE 1

IGH N 424 TON AV ENU L E I M LEIGHT M ON AVENUE 4

2

7

3

5 2

3

2 P 1 a t h

( u W m

) O

1 W

1 1 O

5 O OD H 5 D EY S R

H OA E 12 1 D

5 EY V 2 S I RO R 6 A 1

8 D

1 6 D

2 2

22 1

E 1 2 IV E R IV D

DR Y 5 T R E N 16 U E D W 2 B I R 0 L E 2 I S D M

E 7 18 K

A 2

3 L

3 W 1 O

Cleggswood Heys 1 DA R 7 LE 2

VI

1 E 8

1 W 3 1 El

Sub N 3

2 Sta 3 HOLLINGWORTH E U Y N L E V

A I R 1 Hollingworth Lake Country Park

30 U

D 3

M 1 L B LAKE E I F L R I

A 7 T 0

S M 1 1

2

4 1 21

32 W E I

V E

D 2

L 7 A A O D R

W

W O 2

4 E I R V N

L 3 L I 5

W M 42 O 179.8m

N

1 K 5

2

5 6

1

7 2

44

P a th

(u

m

3 ) 7

6 1

180.4m 1 7

179.5m

BM 179.77m

E

N

A 179.8m L

E

S l l

U a Hollingworth Manor O W H

e

D l

L b I

u

W o

D

This map is reproduced from Ordnance Survey material with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of SCALE NTS Hollingworth Lake Residents Permit the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office © Parking Scheme Crown Copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil DATE 19/10/2010 proceedings. Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council Proposed zones and corner protection DRAWING No. H60/1050/001 Licence No: LA076279 2010

HIGHWAYS AND ENGINEERING SERVICE DRAWN BY Director of Highways: John Cheetham NETWORK MANAGEMENT
Scale with care as Page 65 Manager: Chris Founds distortion may occur ) m u ( th a P

H 9 O 7 L L IN G W O R T H R O A D

169.2m 9 9

1 01

H EA LD L AN E Hollingworth Road

Car Park 1 03

5 1

El Sub Sta

1

15 1

2 Path

5 HIGHWAYS AND ENGINEERING The Fisherman's Inn 0 5 (PH) th Pa SERVICE BM 172.72m 5 3

11

171.0m Director of Highways: John Cheetham 4

LB

8 38 ANK sonry KE B ng ma H LA Slopi Path 1 E

6 A

a H NETWORK MANAGEMENT t S L E b u E A K S l S D L

E N D O 3 L A L Manager: Chris Founds

C 2 2 6 A B K L N N E A E

B A K 5

2 LA N E 172.2m HE Pump House AL 4 D CL OS 2 E

1

5 1

26

1

1 1 H 89 IG

H 14 This map is reproduced from Ordnance Survey material 1

E 4 ry with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of n R o

s

a

7 1 m 3 g 4 the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office © in p lo S Crown Copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes

Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil 4 C

6 H LIG proceedings. H

E

1 ER 2 5 Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council C 7 GLE G G Licence No: LA076279 2010 S 1 GW O Hollingworth Lake Country Park O 2 172.8m S D A V WE Page 66 N U

E O 2 O

D 1

1 A 3

8 V E K N N A 1 B

1 U 1 6 E K E LA NO WAITING AT ANY TIME h € at 9 P 5 o t 57 3 BE 5 EC 13

HW 2 OO D A VEN U 9 E 4

7

El Sub Sta 4

2

5 6

1 NO LOADING AT ANY TIME

3

4 Hollingworth Lake Country Park

2 8

Her Majesty's Office (c) Crown Copyright. K Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown N Copyright and may lead to prosecution HOLLINGWORTHSlipway A or civil proceedings.

3 B 3 E TCB Car Park 24 K 1 3 PC 1 A 7 2 L 8

7 2
QUEENS VIEW 3 2 QUEENS V 5 I 2 EW

Slipway

1 Boat House

3 INGWORTH 0 HOLL

1

2

1 Car Park 8

9 1 Slipway

E

U 171.9m N 2 E V A Boat House LB Proposed New Orders D 5 O 1

O

W 18 S 1 G Slipway

G E K L N A C ts S B s o M E P 1 83 1 K I 1 A T L H Slipway Y B DRAWING TITLE 171.6m R RID OA GE Lake Bank D 3 191 Waiting Restrictions

BM 173.42m Hollingworth Lake Sailing Club

8 6 1 SCALE 1 : 2000

The Beach Posts Tavern (PH) DATE 31/08/2010 E 2 IV R 2 DRAWING No. H60/1051/002 D Y R U 1 B DRAWN BY Chris Thompson IL

M 5 Agenda Item 16

REPORT FOR DECISION

Agenda item no:

Pennines Township Committee 24 May 2011

Report of the Director of Highways

LAKE BANK, HOLLINGWORTH LAKE – OBJECTIONS TO PROPOSED NO WAITING AT ANY TIME/NO LOADING AT ANY TIME ORDER

Wards affected: Littleborough Lakeside Report Author: Chris Thompson

Telephone: (01706) 924591

This report is to advise Members of objections received to the proposed Traffic Regulation Order for No Waiting at Any Time along Lake Bank, Hollingworth Lake, Littleborough.

1. It is recommended that: 1.1 The Committee considers whether the proposed Traffic Regulation Order Borough of Rochdale ((Civil Enforcement of Traffic Contraventions) (Various Streets) (Pennines Township) Order 2008) (Amendment) (No. 18) Order Lake Bank, Littleborough outlined in Section 5.2 of this report be implemented. 1.2 It should be noted that in considering the report, the proposed Order is deemed strategic in nature and should be dealt with in accordance with Section F2 of the Scheme of Delegation to Township Committee. Committee has delegated power to confirm the proposals and the Order. However, if the Committee wish not to confirm the proposals and the Order, the matter must be referred to Cabinet for decision. 2. Reasons for recommendation: 2.1 A decision needs to be made in respect of the objections received so that the scheme can be progressed and the new restrictions introduced. 3. Alternatives considered: 3.1 The alternative to the proposals laid out in this report is to leave the existing restrictions in place, thereby not introducing the proposed traffic regulation orders.

It should be noted that the proposed traffic regulation orders are as a consequence of indiscriminate parking along the lengths of road concerned affecting driver visibility and road safety. To address this issue, it is necessary to introduce the new traffic orders.

Lake Bank Area – Proposed No Waiting at Any Time TRO – Report to Committee Page 1 of 9

Page 67 4. Consultation undertaken:

4.1 Statutory consultation has taken place, in that, notices of intention to make the Order have been posted on site and published in the local newspaper on the 22 nd of December 2010 and notices have been served on consultees. In addition to the above, the leaflets hand-delivered to properties affected by the Proposed Resident Permit Parking Scheme at Hollingworth Lake also contained information relating to this proposed order.

5. Background: 5.1 Currently, the traffic regulation orders in the vicinity of Hollingworth Lake prohibit parking on Saturdays, Sundays and Bank Holidays. In more recent years’ events and the popularity of Hollingworth Lake has increased. The level of parking control afforded by these regulations has become inadequate.

The Director of Highways has been requested by Pennines Township to increase the restrictions to No Waiting at Any Time and No Loading at Any Time so as to cover all possible events times, increase road safety and prevent congestion on part of the strategic road network.

5.2 In Order to effect the proposals described above the Director of Highways proposes to amend the Borough of Rochdale (Civil Enforcement of Traffic Contraventions) (Various Streets) (Pennines Township) Order 2008 (Amendment) (No. 18) Order by inserting the following :-

Schedule No. 1.1 No Waiting at Any Time

Lake Bank, Littleborough Lakeside Ward

n(i) the north-westerly side from a point 15 metres north-east of its junction with Heald Lane to a point 21 metres west of its junction with Hollingworth Road

n(ii) the north-westerly side from a point 15 metres north-east of its junction with Smithy Bridge Road to a point 15 metres south west of its junction with Higher Cleggswood Avenue

Smithy Bridge Road, Littleborough Lakeside Ward

n(i) the south-westerly side from its junction with Milbury Drive to a point 15 metres north-west of its junction with Milbury Drive

Schedule No. 4.1 No Loading at Any Time

Lake Bank, Littleborough Lakeside Ward

n(i) the north-westerly side from its junction with Smithy Bridge Road to a point 15 metres north-east of its junction with Smithy Bridge Road

Lake Bank Area – Proposed No Waiting at Any Time TRO – Report to Committee Page 2 of 9

Page 68

Milbury Drive, Littleborough Lakeside Ward n(i) south-easterly side from its junction with Smithy Bridge Road to a point 15 metres south of its junction with Smithy Bridge Road n(ii) north-westerly side from its junction with Smithy Bridge Road to a point 16 metres south-west of its junction with Smithy Bridge Road

Smithy Bridge Road, Littleborough Lakeside Ward n(i) the north-easterly side from its junction with Lake Bank to a point 19 metres north-west of its junction with Lake Bank n(ii) the south-westerly side from its junction with Milbury Drive to a point 15 metres north-west of its junction with Milbury Drive

Revoke those parts of the Borough of Rochdale (Civil Enforcement of Traffic Contraventions) (Various Streets) (Pennines Township) Order 2008, as follows :-

Schedule 1.1 No Waiting at Any Time

Smithy Bridge Road, Littleborough Lakeside Ward

(xiii) the south side from its junction with Milbury Drive to a point 8 metres west of its junction with Milbury Drive

Schedule No. 2.13 No Waiting Saturday, Sunday, Bank Holidays, Noon-8pm

Lake Bank, Littleborough Lakeside Ward

(i) the north side from a point 15 metres north-east of its junction with Heald Lane for a distance of 211 metres in a north-easterly direction

(ii) the west side from a point 15 metres north-east of its junction with Smithy Bridge Road for a distance of 23 metres in a north-easterly direction

(iii) the west side from its junction with Queens View to a point 15 metres south-west of its junction with Higher Cleggswood Avenue

Schedule No. 5.17 No Loading Mon-Sat 8am-9.30am and 4pm-6pm

Lake Bank, Littleborough Lakeside Ward the west side from its junction with Smithy Bridge Road to a point 15 metres north-east of its junction with Smithy Bridge Road

Lake Bank Area – Proposed No Waiting at Any Time TRO – Report to Committee Page 3 of 9

Page 69 Milbury Drive, Littleborough Lakeside Ward

the east side from its junction with Smithy Bridge Road to a point 15 metres south of its junction with Smithy Bridge Road

Schedule No. 5.19 No Loading Mon-Sat 8.00-9.30am And Mon-Fri 4.00-6.30pm

Smithy Bridge Road, Littleborough Lakeside Ward

the north side from its junction with Lake Bank to a point 19 metres west of its junction with Lake Bank

Schedule No. 5.20 No Loading Mon-Sat 8.00-9.30am And Mon-Fri 4.00-6.00pm

Smithy Bridge Road, Littleborough Lakeside Ward

(viii) the south side from its junction with Milbury Drive to a point 8 metres west of its junction with Milbury Drive

6. Report:

6.1 By the end of the objection period (28 th January 2011) a total of 12 objections had been received. The Director of Highways, Impact Partnership has responded to the issues raised and his responses are detailed in Section 8 of this Report.

7. Letters of Objection:

7.1 As stated above, there were a total of 12 objections received to the proposed scheme. There were also 5 items of correspondence supporting the proposed scheme.

Letters of objection were received from the following residents:

Mrs Janine Finn – no reason offered [email protected]

David Finn [email protected]

Trevor Harrison - 3 Lincoln Drive, Smithy Bridge, Littleborough, OL15 0NE

Heather Harrison - 3 Lincoln Drive, Smithy Bridge, Littleborough, OL15 0NE

Brenda Chadwick - 7 Lincoln Drive, Smithy Bridge, Littleborough, OL15 0NE

Alan Chadwick - 7 Lincoln Drive, Smithy Bridge, Littleborough, OL15 0NE

Penny Price - Hollingworth Lake Rowing Club, The Clubhouse, Lake Bank, Smithy Bridge, Rochdale

Lake Bank Area – Proposed No Waiting at Any Time TRO – Report to Committee Page 4 of 9

Page 70 Graham Bucknell - 3 Hollingworth Road, Littleborough, OL15 0AU

Elizabeth & Donald Kay - 79 Lake Bank, Littleborough, OL15 0DN

Mr Tony Buckley - 81 Lake Bank, Littleborough, OL15 0DN

Norman Hill - 189 Smithy Bridge Road, Littleborough, OL15 0DB

Russell Walton - 129 Smithy Bridge Road, Littleborough, OL15 0BQ

8 Director of Highways response to the objections:

8.1 Objection

There would be a detrimental effect to local businesses/tourism

Objections received from:

Trevor Harrison - 3 Lincoln Drive, Smithy Bridge, Littleborough, OL15 0NE

Heather Harrison - 3 Lincoln Drive, Smithy Bridge, Littleborough, OL15 0NE

Penny Price - Hollingworth Lake Rowing Club, The Clubhouse, Lake Bank, Smithy Bridge, Rochdale

Elizabeth & Donald Kay - 79 Lake Bank, Littleborough, OL15 0DN

Response of the Director of Highways

The removal of indiscriminately parked vehicles along Lake Bank should have little effect on local businesses as there are car parking facilities adjacent to Lake Bank. The facilities are only full during peak periods when the parking restrictions on Lake Bank are required the most.

There is a scheme underway to provide more adequate signage to direct visitors/tourists to off-street parking facilities and the Hollingworth Road Car Park being better signed. This is a proposal already in motion. With regard to comments received from the Rowing Club, while the three car parks close to Hollingworth Lake charges seven days a week, there is no charge after 6pm which would help accommodate the activities taking place on a Tuesday and Thursday evening.

8.2 Objection

The current restrictions are sufficient.

Objections received from:

David Finn - [email protected]

Brenda Chadwick - 7 Lincoln Drive, Smithy Bridge, Littleborough, OL15 0NE

Lake Bank Area – Proposed No Waiting at Any Time TRO – Report to Committee Page 5 of 9

Page 71 Alan Chadwick - 7 Lincoln Drive, Smithy Bridge, Littleborough, OL15 0NE

Response of the Director of Highways

It can never be seen as safe to allow parking and hence the boarding and alighting of passengers adjacent to a busy road when there are adequate parking facilities available.

A ‘No Waiting at Any Time’ restriction sends a clearer message to the motorist by stating you must not park on the length of highway covered by the restriction. The current restrictions (No Waiting 8am – 6pm) do not assist in maintaining the expeditious flow of vehicles along Lake Bank as per Part 2 of the Traffic Management Act 2004. This B-class highway forms part of the strategic road network and the local authority must see that the act is adhered to where appropriate.

8.3 Objection

The proposals will cause parking problems in the area, made worse by the possible introduction of the Residents’ Permit Parking Scheme.

Objections received from:

Brenda Chadwick - 7 Lincoln Drive, Smithy Bridge, Littleborough, OL15 0NE

Alan Chadwick - 7 Lincoln Drive, Smithy Bridge, Littleborough, OL15 0NE

Graham Bucknell - 3 Hollingworth Road, Littleborough, OL15 0AU

Norman Hill - 189 Smithy Bridge Road, Littleborough, OL15 0DB

Response of the Director of Highways

There are adequate off-street parking facilities at Hollingworth Lake which are only full during peak periods.

In the near future there are plans to introduce larger, more appropriately placed signs to direct visitors to the existing car parks, especially the car park located on Hollingworth Road. This would help prevent the need for any parking issues to be moved to other parts of the highway.

This proposal is a separate traffic order to the proposed Residents’ Permit Parking Scheme and the aims/reasons for its proposed introduction are different to that of the residential scheme.

Lake Bank Area – Proposed No Waiting at Any Time TRO – Report to Committee Page 6 of 9

Page 72 8.4 Objection

Disabled persons will not be able to park on the restrictions.

Objection received from:

Russell Walton - 129 Smithy Bridge Road, Littleborough, OL15 0BQ

Response of the Director of Highways

Blue badge holders are permitted to park for up to 3 hours on a No Waiting at Any Time restriction provided they comply with the Department for Transport explanatory leaflet. The blue badge scheme booklet states that vehicles must not park where it would obstruct of cause danger to others. The blue badge is not a licence to park anywhere. Blue badge holders may park free within any of the Rochdale MBC car parks adjacent to Hollingworth Lake.

8.5 Objection

Traffic speed will increase due to no obstructions on the highway.

Objections received from:

Penny Price - Hollingworth Lake Rowing Club, The Clubhouse, Lake Bank, Smithy Bridge, Rochdale

Mr Tony Buckley - 81 Lake Bank, Littleborough, OL15 0DN

Norman Hill - 189 Smithy Bridge Road, Littleborough, OL15 0DB

Response of the Director of Highways

Lake Bank is a relatively narrow B-class highway. It carries a large amount of local, commuter and business traffic on a daily basis, some of which are larger vans/Heavy Goods Vehicles. It is also a bus route. At some points, Lake Bank is a little over 6 metres in width. A parked vehicle between Heald Lane and Hollingworth Road will disrupt the expeditious movement of traffic along the highway. It is not inconceivable that traffic speeds could increase with no obstruction on the highway. Further traffic calming measures would help reduce vehicle speed along Lake Bank. The removal of all parked vehicles is unlikely to increase traffic speed however it will dramatically improve road safety for pedestrians, especially the more vulnerable road users such as children and OAP’s.

Lake Bank Area – Proposed No Waiting at Any Time TRO – Report to Committee Page 7 of 9

Page 73 8.6 Objection

Lake Bank residents will be forced to park in pay and display car parks, at cost, due to the proposed restrictions and the possible introduction of a Residents’ Permit Parking Scheme.

Objection received from:

Mr Tony Buckley - 81 Lake Bank, Littleborough, OL15 0DN

Response of the Director of Highways

Tariffs on the Rochdale MBC car parks adjacent to Hollingworth Lake only apply between the hours of 8am and 6pm. Outside of these hours parking is free. No one has a right to park on the public highway. The distance between house number 61 Lake Bank and number 89 Lake Bank is 150 metres. By not altering the restrictions (No Waiting 8am – 6pm) immediately outside these properties, residents will still be able to park outside their properties when the restrictions are not in force.

As stated above the proposed Residents’ Permit Parking Scheme is a separate issue and the aims/reasons for its proposed introduction are different to that of this proposed scheme.

8.7 Comment

Mrs Janine Finn registered an objection to the proposed scheme, but did not state a reason.

9. EQUALITIES IMPACTS: 9.1 There are no (significant) workforce equality issues arising from this report.

10 LEGAL IMPLICATIONS: 10.1 Legal have been consulted and there are no issues in this matter.

11. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: 11.1 None

12. Conclusions: Committee is asked to decide whether or not to implement the proposals set out at paragraph 5.2 of this report.

For further information and background papers: For further information about this report or access to any background papers please contact Chris Thompson Tel: (01706) 924591.

Lake Bank Area – Proposed No Waiting at Any Time TRO – Report to Committee Page 8 of 9

Page 74 Director of Highways Municipal Offices Floor 3 Smith Street Rochdale OL16 1LX

Lake Bank Area – Proposed No Waiting at Any Time TRO – Report to Committee Page 9 of 9

Page 75

E

L

T

I

T

G

N I 1 : 500 05/05/2011

W

UNIT A

or civil proceedings. R

SERVICE

D

Copyright and may lead to prosecution

Her Majesty's Office (c) Crown Copyright.

Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown

.

o

Selected map area

N

B.Sc., M.B.A., C. Eng., MICE Y

B G

Head of service Mr. D. Forrester

N

N I

E

L

W W

E

A

A A T

This map is reproduced from Ordnance Survey material with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office © Crown Copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council Licence No: LA076279 2011

C

A

R R Manager: Mr. A Shaw I Eng, AMICE, FIHIE

TRAFFIC AND ROAD SAFETY

S

D

D D HIGHWAYS AND ENGINEERING Holy Trinity Church Aged Home for the WAITING LIMITED 2

3 Zebra Zig Zag No Loading Mon-Sat 7.30am-9.30am and 4pm-6.30pm No Waiting At Any Time No waiting for a specified time period No waiting Sign Post Parking Bay Club MON - FRI, 8:30am 5:30pm

1 Hour, No Return Within Hour

T E

2

E 5 R

T 2 143.6m

7 S PO n Garde s 2 Mew

9 Car Park

TREET

TRY S

NDUS

I 1 2 t o

1

0 1

3

3 8am - 6pm MON - SAT

3 NO WAITING

5

6 1 MON - SAT PCs WAITING LIMITED Memorial War The

Falcon Inn

(PH) 30 mins, No Return Within mins

D

A

O

R

N

O I

T

2 A

T 2 S D A O R N IO T A T S 145.1m 8

2

f

a

e

h

l

s

t

WAITING LIMITED te

a

o

e

H

h MON - FRI, 8:30am 5:30pm W

1 Hour, No Return Within Hour

g

ce

g

a la

r

P C

H

C 2

R Health Centre

U

H

Bus Stop - 6am 11pm Taxi rank - 11pm 6am C OPTION B

T

E

k

)

E Dual purpose bay General parking - 8am 6pm Taxi rank - 6pm 8am a OPTION A

H

R O

P

( l

T

8 a

S

y

3

o L

R

4 L

Page 76I

3 2 H

OPTIONS       

      

       4                            

S

6 E M TCB Page 1 of Agenda Item 17

REPORT FOR DECISION

Agenda item no:

Pennines Township Committee 24 May 2011 Report of the Director of Highways

LITTLEBOROUGH TOWN CENTRE – PROPOSED TAXI RANK LOCATIONS

Wards affected: All Pennines Report Author: Chris Thompson

Telephone: (01706) 924591

This report is to seek Members approval to establish a Taxi Rank and amend the existing waiting restrictions in the vicinity of the Church Street / Railway Street roundabout.

1. It is recommended that: 1.1 The Committee considers the proposals to introduce a Taxi Rank plus amendments to the waiting restrictions and approves their introduction.

2. Reasons for recommendation: 2.1 A decision needs to be made in order to progress the proposal and allow a funding request to be submitted.

3. Alternatives considered: 3.1 To retain the current restrictions along Church Street and Station Road, Littleborough. 3.2 To introduce a night-time taxi rank on Railway Street outside the Wheatsheaf Public House. 3.3 To introduce a night-time taxi rank in the existing bus lay by on Church Street outside the Wheatsheaf Public house. 3.4 Amend the times of operation of the parking bays in the vicinity of the Church Street/Railway Street roundabout to provide consistency across the centre of Littleborough.

4. Consultation: 4.1 Full consultation to comply with the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 will be undertaken.

Page 1 of 3

Page 77 4.2 Consultation with the emergency services and TfGM (buses) will be carried out via the Traffic Management Unit meetings.

5. Background: 5.1 At the Pennines Township meeting held on 11 January 2011 (Agenda item 8) a report was presented by the Service Director for Planning and Regulation and dealt with the issues surrounding a request by the hackney carriage operators for a taxi rank to be provided in Littleborough town centre. 5.2 The committee requested further information to assist in the decision whether to proceed. The issues related to Highway matters which are addressed in this report ie Location, operation times, enforcement and funding. 5.3 Since the last Township meeting a Ward Councillor, Licensing and Highways have met on site to discuss the issues. The following options reflect the discussions on site. It was also requested by the Ward Councillor that the opportunity be taken to standardise the existing limited time parking bays in the vicinity to only be operative between 8am and 6pm allowing them to be used for greater than 1 hour during the evening. 5.4 Taxis are divided into private hire and hackney carriages. There are similarities in the work that they do in that they transport members of the public for payment. In the case of traffic regulation orders the term ‘taxi’ only refers to hackney carriages. The use of a private hire cab must be pre booked whereas a hackney carriage may ply for hire. To allow this to occur safely in a town centre environment the provision of a taxi rank is advisable. 5.5 The general public have different needs and sometimes have disabilities which need to be taken into consideration when looking at the taxi fleet, locations of operators and ranks. 5.6 In the past when the application for a rank has been sent in to Township for consideration, the private hire operators have objected, which is their right, however a very limited space rank, as proposed, will not have a detrimental effect on their business as hackney carriage vehicles already operate in the area and will enable more regulation of activities when the vehicles are standing for hire. 5.7 In line with legislation it is the Licensing Managers responsibility to identify locations where ranks should be situated to meet demand. Members of the public do flag down hackney carriages in the town centre, and surrounding areas; this has been observed by licensing staff. 5.8 From the discussions on site there are two possible locations for a taxi rank in Littleborough Town Centre. OPTION A is the preferred location by both Highways and Taxi Licensing and would be to change the existing limited parking bay on Railway Street to a dual purpose bay ie general parking between 8am and 6pm with the bay converting to a taxi rank between 6pm and 8am the following morning, seven days a week. OPTION B is to convert the existing bus bay on Church Street to operate as a bus stop between 6am and 11pm and a taxi rank from 11pm until 6am the following morning. This option would require Department for Transport special authorisation. 5.9 Should committee approve one of the options then the opportunity would be taken to amend the times of operation of the parking bays in the vicinity of the

Page 2 of 3

Page 78 Church Street/Railway Street roundabout to be operative between 8am and 6pm Monday to Friday to provide consistency. 5.10 The enforcement of any resulting scheme will be a joint activity involving Taxi Licensing and the Parking Services Civil Enforcement Offices. Abuse of the taxi rank by taxi operators with be enforced by Taxi Licensing and the contravention of any waiting restrictions or bus stop clearways will be enforced by Civil Enforcement officers.

6 Equal Opportunities Implications: 6.1 This report has no direct impact on the Council’s equal opportunities policies and practices

7 Personnel Implications: 7.1 None

8. Financial Implications: 8.1 Option A would cost £3500 to implement 8.2 Option B would cost £4000 to implement 8.3 To amend the restrictions in the existing parking bays if promoted with either of the two options will cost an additional £2000 to the above costs. This would need to provided from the Pennines Township Devolved Budget. 8.4 The hackney carriage operators have indicated that they are prepared to fund the cost indicated against Option A but have not yet indicted whether they would be prepared to fund Option B as this is a new proposal.

For further i nformation and background papers: For further information about this report or access to any background papers please contact Chris Thompson Tel: (01706) 924591.

Director of Highways Municipal Offices Floor 3 Smith Street Rochdale OL16 1LX

Page 3 of 3

Page 79 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 80 Agenda Item 18

REPORT FOR INFORMATION

Agenda item no:

Pennines Township Committee th 24 May 2011 Report of the Service Director Planning and Regulation Services

Littleborough Town Centre Conservation Area - Proposed Variation of the North Boundary to include the Caldermoor PH & Hare Hill House & Park

Wards affected: Littleborough Lakeside, Report Author: Kerrie Smith (THI Project Wardle & West Littleborough Assistant) Telephone: (01706) 924352

To recommend varying the Northern boundary of the Littleborough Town Centre Conservation Area

PLEASE NOTE: In accordance with the Council’s Scheme of Delegation on Development and Related Matters this request was approved by the Township Committee Chair on 18 March 2011 under the Emergency Powers procedure between the Chair of Pennines Township and the Council’s Chief Planning Officer. This report in its original format has been included in this Committee Agenda to inform Members of Pennines Township of the requested and approved changes.

1. It is recommended that the Township Committee: 1.1. considers the architectural and historic interest of the area of Caldermoor and Hare Hill Road as enclosed by the proposed new boundary on the Plan (see Appendix 1) and outlined in the report; 1.2. determines there is special architectural or historic interest, the character or appearance of which it is desirable to preserve or enhance ; and, 1.3. resolves to vary the northern boundary of the Littleborough Town Centre Conservation Area in accordance with the plan, taking into account other relevant factors, including the consequences of including the affected buildings within the Conservation Area (see Appendix 2). 2. Reasons for recommendation: 2.1. The Littleborough Civic Society approached Development Management over public concern for the Caldermoor PH and belief that it could be at threat from inappropriate development or demolition. Its loss would harm the historic character and interest of the area. 2.2. On 11 th September 2007, the Township Committee approved a list of potential Conservation Areas. This included extensions to the Littleborough in Town Centre Conservation Area. The Littleborough Civic Trust has been undertaking a thorough appraisal of the Town Centre Conservation Area. They have identified the area of Caldermoor and Hare Hill Road as a proposed extension.

Page 81 2.3. As this is an urgent matter, the proposed new boundary of the Conservation Area has been drawn to a minimum size, in accordance with Council guidelines. The Civic Trust will present their appraisals boundary variations for the wider Conservation Area in due course once they have completed their report. 2.4. The Littleborough Civic Trust, The Littleborough Historical and Archaeological Society and local residents have expressed concern about the future of the Caldermoor PH and support the extension of the Conservation Area through the urgent designation procedure. 3. Alternatives considered 3.1. Delaying the matter, while awaiting normal public consultation and reporting procedures would leave the Caldermoor PH exposed to the possibility of demolition. Such an occurrence happened recently within the Township, at the Waggon and Horses in New Hey. The building is important architecturally and historically and its loss would undermine the special character of the area. 4. Consultation undertaken/proposed: 4.1. The momentum for this proposal came form the Civic Trust, which is concerned it would not be able to finish the Conservation Area Appraisal in time to protect the Caldermoor PH. 4.2. We have received three emails and one letter supporting this proposal and a summary of their comments are included below. 4.3. It is proposed to write immediately to residents and owners affected by the change. The Township Committee will be able to consider the matter at a later date when the proposals drawn up by the Littleborough Civic Trust are brought forward for consideration by the Committee following public consultation.

The Littleborough Civic Trust: The Trust wrote to the Development Manager expressing concern about the Caldermoor PH, Hare Hill House and the Carnegie Library. The letter is supported by the Littleborough Historical Society and 18 local residents are listed in support at the end of the letter. A copy of the letter is attached.

Local resident: “this junction (Caldermoor) is one of considerable value and historical interest in Littleborough… the buildings clustered around the junction…provide us with an area of distinct local significance, historically, socially and indeed architecturally. The Caldermoor Public House…is a solid, well proportioned building which is a visually important part of the area. For these reasons I believe, and request, that it be included within an extension of the Central Conservation Area of Littleborough. It is worth noting that it also forms part of the Hare Hill Park / Hare Hill House environment; its 3-stories elevation and its position at the top of the Hare Hill Road ascent, are clearly visible from the Hare Hill Road entrance area of the Park, revealing its commanding site from another viewpoint…I sincerely hope that these comments will support any proposals made for the protection of the building, and the nearby junction, within an extension of the Central Conservation Area.”

Local Resident: “I wish to voice my concern that the recent sale of the Caldermoor Public House might spoil the conservation area in which it stands. It is very important that as much conservation land as possible is kept for the enjoyment of local residents' and future generations.”

Local Resident: “ As I understand the substantial building, stone built, dated 1755, on the corner of Calderbrook Road and Hare Hill Road, formerly the Caldermoor pub, has now been sold. This particularly corner of Littleborough,

Page 82 which pre-dates the central 19th century development in Littleborough, is very important historically… So the former pub, the Caldermoor, is a building closely associated with Littleborough's history and heritage…At the same time the corner still has other interesting buildings… The former 'Caldermoor' could now be at risk either of being pulled down or of being unsympathetically converted. I would therefore strongly support the extension of the Conservation Area.”

5. Report: Introduction & background to designation: 4.4. The Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 imposes a duty on local planning authorities to survey and keep under review their district for areas which are of special architectural or historic interest, the character of which it is desirable to preserve or enhance , and to designate those areas as conservation areas. This duty is an ongoing requirement of local authorities and sometimes involves "varying" (the legal term) the existing Conservation Area boundary to include other properties where further study has shown them to be of historic or architectural interest. 4.5. Littleborough Town Centre Conservation Area is a long established area of historic and architectural interest. It was designated in 1977 following architectural and historical studies at that time. The boundary of the Conservation Area is therefore thirty-four years old and due for re-assessment. This has been taking place locally via the Littleborough Civic Trust. 4.6. This proposed variation of the boundary would bring the Caldermoor area and the immediate Hare Hill Road area within the Conservation Area. This would be a proportionate response to the circumstances. 4.7. A Conservation Area means that Conservation Area Consent is needed before the demolition of a building can take place. This consent is similar to Listed Building Consent and is determined by the local planning authority. In this way buildings are protected from demolition in a Conservation Area. 4.8. The Council should be aware that Council guidelines (see Appendix 2) state that an urgent decision to make or extend a Conservation Area should be reconsidered within one year after a period of consultation and reflection. It is proposed to do this in the context of the wider extensions. 4.9. In their letter the Civic Trust highlights the uncertainty facing Hare Hill House and request that the House, Library and Park be included within the emergency designation. The Urgent Designation Procedure creates a minimum boundary. As Hare Hill House, Library and Park are in Council ownership, it is not felt they are in immediate danger and have therefore been excluded from the recommended urgent extension. The appraisal identifies the House, Library and Park as of local importance Grade 1. It is recommended that these buildings and park are separately reported to the next convenient Township Committee. The Character of the Conservation Area: 4.10. The hamlet of Caldermoor grew around the cross road on the busy packhorse road in the 18 th century. This pre-dated the turnpike road through the valley bottom to Littleborough from Yorkshire. There is a cluster of locally important buildings that contribute to the historic interest and attractive character of the area. From Caldermoor, there is a substantial vista, enclosed by rows of terraced houses, down Hare Hill Road towards Littleborough town centre. Strong building lines along Hare Hill Road and the stone walls and piers to the fronts of properties, define the edge of the road along Hare Hill Road.

Page 83 4.11. The Caldermoor Public House was built by the Newalls as a house in 1755. The mid 18th century date on the 'pub' building and the adjoining cottage show that this was built at the height of the prosperity of the cottage textile industry. The Newalls were an important family within Littleborough and instrumental in the area’s industrial growth. The Newall family spanned the changes through the 19thcentury, from being merchants involved in the cottage industry to the building of Hare Hill Mill (further down the road) which was one of the first (if not the first) steam powered flannel mills in Littleborough. So the former pub, the Caldermoor, is a building closely associated with Littleborough's history and heritage. The house became a pub, the Dog and Partridge in 1818, and renamed the Caldermoor in 1968. Although now rendered, it is a substantial stone building and has a large cobbled area to the front (now covered with tarmac). This position, set back from Hare Hill Road, gives the building prominence within the townscape and makes it a landmark along Calderbrook Road. The appraisal has identified it as a building of Local List, Grade 1. 4.12. The variation of the boundary also includes other buildings of local interest, including: § Lea Bank, 1-2 Whitelees Road (Local List Grade 1) § Calder Cottage, 97 Hare Hill Road (Local List Grade 1) § C.W.S. Hare Hill Mill (Local List Grade 1) § The Chapel, Shore Road (Local List Grade 2) § 25-31 Hare Hill Road (Local List Grade 2)

An explanation of Conservation Areas and the Consequences of Designation 4.13. For further information on what are conservation areas and the consequences of making a Conservation Area, please refer to the Appendix 2. 5. Personnel Implications: 5.1 The carrying out of a consultation exercise will be undertaken within existing staff resources. 6. Financial Implications: 6.1. A decision to designate a Conservation Area carries no immediate significant financial implications though there may be some financial implications in the long term 7. Conclusions 7.1. The proposed variation of the Conservation Area boundary is to include an area of special architectural or historic interest, the character or appearance of which it is desirable to preserve or enhance and the Council should vary the boundary accordingly. It is recommended that the possible designation of Hare Hill Park and buildings as a conservation area extension are separately reported to the next convenient Township Committee.

For further information and background papers: For further information about this report or access to any background papers please contact Kerrie Smith, THI Assistant Project Officer, Conservation and Design in the Development Management Service, Planning and Regulation Service, Telegraph House, Baillie Street, Rochdale, OL16 1JH or ring (01706) 924352.

Peter Rowlinson Service Director Planning and Regulation Services Telegraph House, Baillie Street Rochdale OL16 1JH

Page 84 APPENDIX 1

Page 85

APPENDIX 2

What are Conservation Areas? 1. A conservation area is an area of special architectural or historic interest, the character and appearance of which it is desirable to preserve or enhance . Areas are assessed from a local perspective where the aim is to conserve the familiar and cherished local scene. The most important conservation areas may also be of national importance but there is no separate designation for this. 2. Conservation areas are for areas, not individual buildings. However, what constitutes an area is very wide. For example, the smallest conservation area might be a house and a garden, or perhaps a church and associated vicarage, while the largest conservation area might cover a substantial rural landscape. Many are town or village centres while others cover unique areas, such as model housing estates. The designation of long lengths of canal and railway is common, as is the designation of the best of a particular urban type such as terraced housing or industrial buildings. 3. Most conservation areas support the social cohesion of the particular area through the encouragement of local pride and the care of the environment. Conservation area status is an official acknowledgement that an area has special heritage value. This eventually works its way through the developmental and ownership structure of a place and encourages a virtuous cycle of improvement. For example, it can become easier to achieve better design quality or successful grant applications to outside bodies. How are Conservation Areas made? 4. Conservation areas are normally made or “designated” by the local planning authority under powers contained in the Planning (Listed Buildings & Conservation Areas) Act 1990. The local authority can alter the boundary of an existing conservation area or cancel it altogether. The Council is free to establish its own designation procedure and criteria. The procedure should normally include the consultation of affected properties and interested groups and bodies by letter. 5. Conservation areas should have a strong local flavour and interest and, for this reason, are designated by the Township Committees rather than a borough-wide committee at Rochdale MBC. Nevertheless, it is important to see conservation areas as part of the wider planning of the Borough. They should be consistent with other aims and policies of the UDP and complement other Council initiatives. Urgent Designation Procedure 6. Occasionally, a proposed development or demolition will have major implications for a possible conservation area. There may not be sufficient time for the normal consultation procedure to take place and the proposal would effectively prevent the conservation area being considered for at least part of the area. In these circumstances, it is appropriate to use the urgent designation procedure under the scheme of delegation. 7. In such circumstances, the decision to designate a Conservation Area is delegated to the Council’s Development Manager, in consultation with the Chair or Vice Chair of the relevant Township Committee. That the decision has been taken under these emergency procedures is then reported to the first available Township Committee meeting. A report, within one year of designation, is subsequently presented to the Township Committee, allowing it to consider the matter following reflection, consultation and resolution of any particular planning problems.

Page 86

The Consequences of Conservation Area Designation

These can be summarised as follows.

a. The local planning authority is under a general duty to ensure the preservation and enhancement of conservation areas and has a particular duty to prepare proposals to that end. b. The local authority may be able to take steps to ensure a building is kept in good repair. c. From time to time, limited financial assistance may be available for the upkeep of buildings in the area. d. The details as to the limits of what works may be carried out without planning permission are different (in particular, more limited permitted development rights for householders). e. The planning authority is to take into account the desirability of preserving and enhancing the character and appearance of the area when determining planning applications and there is extra publicity for applications to this effect. f. Conservation Area Consent is required for the demolition of any unlisted building in the area and the local authority can take enforcement action or institute a criminal prosecution if consent is not obtained. g. Notice must be given to the local authority before works are carried out to any tree in the area. h. The display of advertisements is more restricted than elsewhere.

Adopted Principles There are five adopted principles guiding the Council's actions concerning the making of new Conservation Areas. These are set out below. Principles 3. and 5. specifically underpin the reasoning of this report, which tries to square the need for public consultation with that of an urgent response to a particular circumstance. 1. Only areas and buildings of special architectural or historic interest should be made conservation areas. Areas or buildings without such special interest should not be designated, no matter how strong other reasons might be. 2. The designation of conservation areas should be consistent with the policies of the Unitary Development Plan and good planning practice. 3. The process of making of conservation areas should be open and fair. It should be responsive to local opinion and allow local people and other interested parties to comment. 4. The process should be efficient and practical. It should encourage the making of good decisions within available resources and practical time frames. 5. The process should be flexible to respond to the range of heritage and planning contexts that may arise. In particular, the process should be able to cater for urgent situations where the special interest or character of an area is under immediate threat.

Page 87 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 88 Agenda Item 19 REPORT FOR DECISION

Agenda item no: . Pennines Township Committee, Tuesday 24 th May 2011 Report of Schools Service Director

SCHOOL GOVERNING BODY VACANCIES – AUTHORITY GOVERNORS

Wards affected: All Wards Report author: Paul Hyde Assistant Governor Support Officer Telephone: (01706) 925175

This report outlines the current Authority school governor vacancies, listed in Appendix B, and requests that Township Committees make the appropriate appointments

1. It is recommended that: 1.1 Township appoints Authority Governors to serve on • the school Governing Bodies currently with vacancies; and • the school Governing Bodies with forthcoming vacancies as highlighted in Appendix B.

2. Reasons for recommendation: 2.1 The Township Committee acts in accordance with the agreed procedures in appointing Authority Governors to serve on school Governing Bodies.

3. Alternatives considered: 3.1 There are no alternative methods of filling Authority Governor vacancies.

4. Equal Opportunities Implications: 4.1 The Council are committed to a policy of equal opportunities and in making their recommendations, the Committee are asked to recognise that there is an under representation of disadvantaged groups on governing bodies. Black and minority ethnic groups are under-represented on governing bodies particularly in the Rochdale Township. Similarly disabled persons are generally under-represented on governing bodies.

5. Background 5.1 Following a decision of Council on 14 July 2000 new reports dealing with Authority Governor vacancies will contain no reference to which political group should make the nomination to fill the vacancy and no reference to which political group made previous nominations. Page 89 $demt3mcs.doc

5.2 Governors will be chosen on the basis of the contribution, which they can bring to the school in terms of skills and experience.

5.3 Every effort will be made to fill Authority vacancies at the first meeting at which the vacancy is discussed. Where there is no nomination they will appoint governors from the list of applicants contained within the Committee Report. (See Appendix A).

5.4 Members are asked to ensure that for nominations not included in the report, that the agreement of the nominee is obtained prior to appointment.

5.5 The School Governance (Constitution) Regulations 2007 have the effect of disqualifying Governors who have been removed for non-attendance from re-appointment as a Governor of the any category at the same school during the 12 months immediately following the disqualification. This should be taken into account when appointments are made.

5.6 Details of current Authority vacancies are attached at Appendix B together with other relevant information e.g. willingness to be re-appointed and details of new applicants. Appendix A lists those people who have indicated their willingness to serve on any governing body.

5.7 Members are asked to note that nominations are also sought from schools which are included in Appendix B where applicable.

For further Information and Background papers: For further information about this report or access to any background papers please contact Paul Hyde, Governor Support Team, Schools Service, Municipal Offices, Smith Street, Rochdale Tel: (01706) 925175, Fax (01706) 925030.

S J Brown, Service Director

Page 90 $demt3mcs.doc APPENDIX A

GENERAL LIST OF INTERESTED APPLICANTS

Name & Address Parent of Child Previous Governing Bodies Special of Experience Currently Serving Requests School/College On Age

None

Page 91 $demt3mcs.doc APPENDIX B

PENNINES TOWNSHIP

MILNROW AND NEWHEY WARD

CROSSGATES PRIMARY SCHOOL

One VACANCY caused by the end of term of office of Cllr M Holly on 31 st August 2011. Cllr Holly does not wish to continue to serve as a governor at the school.

Nominations from the school are included below.

Please note: 1. The School Governance (Constitution) (England) Regulations 2003 disqualify any Governor who has been removed for non-attendance from re-appointment as a Governor of any category at the same school during the 12 months immediately following the disqualification; and 2. A person is disqualified from appointment as an Authority Governor of a school if he is eligible to be a Staff Governor of the school.

ONE AUTHORITY GOVERNORS OTHER APPLICANTS Name & Address Governing Bodies Where Currently Serving 1. Vacancy wef 31/08/2011 Dr A Penrose Dr Penrose is currently a 7 Halstead Close Partnership Governor whose Ripponden term of office also expires on Sowerby Bridge 31/08/2011 West Yorkshire This nomination is supported by the school

Nomination Mr/Mrs/Miss/Ms ……………………………………………………………………

Address ......

......

For Office Use Only Dbase Letter File

Page 92 $demt3mcs.doc APPENDIX B

PENNINES TOWNSHIP

SMALLBRIDGE AND FIRGROVE WARD

KENTMERE PRIMARY SCHOOL

ONE VACANCY caused by the resignation of Mr E Thomas on 1 st April 2011.

Nominations from the school are included below.

Please note: 1. The School Governance (Constitution) (England) Regulations 2003 disqualify any Governor who has been removed for non-attendance from re-appointment as a Governor of any category at the same school during the 12 months immediately following the disqualification; and 2. A person is disqualified from appointment as an Authority Governor of a school if he is eligible to be a Staff Governor of the school.

THREE AUTHORITY GOVERNORS OTHER APPLICANTS Name & Address Governing Bodies Where Currently Serving 1. Mrs C Adams Mrs D Cohoon None C/o Intrahealth Smallbridge 2. Mr M Burke GP Practice This nomination is Ralph Williams Centre supported by the school 3. Vacancy Stevenson Square Smallbridge Rochdale

Nomination Mr/Mrs/Miss/Ms ……………………………………………………………………

Address ......

......

For Office Use Only Dbase Letter File

Page 93 $demt3mcs.doc APPENDIX B

PENNINES TOWNSHIP

MILNROW AND NEWHEY WARD

MILNROW PARISH CE PRIMARY SCHOOL

ONE VACANCY caused by the resignation of Mr D Whittle on 9 th February 2011. This vacancy was deferred from the Township meeting held on 9 th February 2011.

No nominations were received from the school.

Please note: 1. The School Governance (Constitution) (England) Regulations 2003 disqualify any Governor who has been removed for non-attendance from re-appointment as a Governor of any category at the same school during the 12 months immediately following the disqualification; and 2. A person is disqualified from appointment as an Authority Governor of a school if he is eligible to be a Staff Governor of the school.

ONE AUTHORITY GOVERNORS OTHER APPLICANTS Name & Address Governing Bodies Where Currently Serving 1. Vacancy

Nomination Mr/Mrs/Miss/Ms ……………………………………………………………………

Address ......

......

For Office Use Only Dbase Letter File

Page 94 $demt3mcs.doc REPORT FOR INFORMATION Agenda Item 20 Agenda item no: Pennine Township Committee 24 May 2011 Report of the Service Director - Planning and Regulation Services

Littleborough Waterside

Wards affected: All Report author: Mark Robinson/Peter Rowlinson

Telephone: (01706) 924308 (01706) 924125

Members are recommended to;

1. Note progress now being made in respect of Littleborough Waterside as set out in this report. 2. Comment on the emerging Masterplan ideas for the wider area 3. Note and comment on any public consultation to be given to this initiative. 4. Agree to receive further reports on the progress of the initiative, including progress on delivery of projects.

1. Introduction

Township Committee received a report at its meeting of September 2010 setting out a proposal for a group of interrelated projects along the Rochdale Canal to tackle a number of derelict sites close to the centre of Littleborough. Members resolved to support proposals including an option to transfer land forming part of the Akzo Nobel site into the Council’s ownership. Members also resolved to support the principle of a Compulsory Purchase Order for the Durn (south) to assemble land for a mixed use scheme comprising residential development, hotel, marina and other uses, and to support a mixed use scheme comprising residential and canal related activities on the Ealees site.

The development of these sites has been a long standing aspiration of members and Township Committee requested to receive further reports on progress of this initiative. Good progress is being made in securing a co-ordinated series of schemes with complementary land uses and which offer the potential to secure significant improvements to areas along the Canal. Other development opportunities have since emerged and are highlighted on the plan which will be available at your meeting. These suggest there is a need to coordinate activities across a wider area than the canal and lake, and to address improved accessibility to the canal and lake from Littleborough and Smithy Bridge stations.

A draft Masterplan for the area is being developed within the Planning Service to consider how development projects can best be coordinated and linked to other Council led projects and resources to maximise wider community benefits. This will be presented to your meeting in more detail. Members are invited to comment on these proposals.

The initiative considers the improvement of pedestrian and cycle links between Littleborough centre and Hollingworth Lake together with other opportunities for additional car parking and traffic calming within the area. Public consultation on these proposals can be sought once Member input into this process has been obtained.

2. Scheme Elements

The Littleborough Waterside project comprises the following principal elements. These are shown in Plan 1. Page1 of 4 95

2.1 Durn

There are two sites at Durn. On the north side of the canal is a site which has planning consent for 44 houses and some preliminary work commenced. The developer here is Briarstone Ltd. On the southern side of the canal, Briarstone have been attempting to assemble a much larger site for a major mixed use development comprising;

- 43 residential units - A Chandlery - A Hotel with Restaurant - A Marina

Briarstone has assembled many of the interests required and has an option on the Council land. A scheme has now been developed and a planning application is expected in the coming weeks. The scheme works well but is being frustrated by one owner which owns about 25% of the site. The issue here is not a willingness to sell but a difference in valuations.

Given that the proposed development has considerable merit and that the issue is about values rather than any operational need for the company to remain on the site then there is a compelling case to support Briarstones aspirations. Members previously supported this approach and agreed to the principle of taking Compulsory Purchase action on the Durn (south) subject to the agreement of Briarstone to underwrite any costs (fees and purchase) incurred by the Council.

Consultation on this has taken place with Littleborough Canal Resource Group. The Group has put forward an alternative scheme which places marina servicing facilities on the proposed hotel site. At this stage the Officer preference is to retain the hotel especially as the Group proposes the Council donates its land at nil value for the marina.

2.2 Railway Arches

The railway arches are listed structures and are an underused resource as they provide a covered area in a key location but which is vacant and as such is a wasted asset. The Priority Investment Fund allocated a substantial resource to secure the improvement of the arches. Current proposals include;

• Improvement of footpath link from Littleborough Station towards Hollingworth Lake including lighting the arches • Provision of a new footpath crossing to link the arches to the Railway Station • An option to provide pedestrian and cycle access the station platform from Hollingworth Road and the canal towpath is being explored, linked to the Akzo scheme.

Since the earlier report a developer has confirmed interest in the arches. Meetings are taking place between the developer, planning and Network Rail to bring forward a proposal to the planning application stage. A draft scheme has been presented to Network Rail and a further meeting is taking place at the time of this report being written. A verbal update on this can be given to your meeting. A key element is that all the arches have prospective occupiers including a café, solicitor’s office and a gallery.

2.3 Former Akzo Nobel site, Hollingworth Road

Countryside Properties acquired this site for development in early May 2011 and proposals for its redevelopment have been shared with Planning for some time. The Planning and Regulation Service has put forward a proposal that the pub / restaurant / hotel proposed for this site be dropped in favour of the Durn site where a more appropriate location overlooking the marina exists. Recent national planning policies support the Durn site as a preferred location for any hotel proposal and there does not

2 of Page4 96

appear to be potential for more than one hotel in Littleborough at present, and need to protect existing facilities within the centre.

The opportunity has been taken to propose a purely residential scheme on Akzo Nobel in exchange for a development which will deliver against ideas emerging through the Littleborough Waterside Masterplan. A more flexible and enhanced S106 contribution (payable in phases linked to development) would be pooled with other resources such as Priority Investment Fund and Connect 2 to deliver proposals identified within an agreed masterplan for the Littleborough Waterside initiative. This could include improved footpaths linking Littleborough centre, along the canal and Hollingworth Lake through the Akzo Nobel site, as well as the acquisition or dedication of land to the Council for additional car parking and events space around the lake.

To support this, Members previously endorsed the principle of the Council accepting three parcels of land comprising;

- The Island site - Land alongside the canal - The former car park

The plan attached to this report shows the three areas of land which are now being formally offered to the Council.

Countryside has indicated its intention to consult with the local community on its proposals in the coming weeks. A planning application will then be submitted shortly after.

2.4 Ealees`

The Ealees site has been the subject of ongoing negotiations between Boys Developments and Rochdale Development Agency. The exclusivity agreement with Boys has lapsed and the Council/RDA approached by the majority landowner to consider development options. It is possible that this may lead to more rapid progress on the site and the previous Township resolution to support Compulsory Purchase Order action will again support progress on this site being made.

A meeting has been arranged with the Environment Agency to discuss how we might try to accommodate uses on the site. This meeting will help to guide the redevelopment of this site. Further progress reports on this will be presented to Members as appropriate

2.5 Rakewood Mill

Preliminary discussions have taken place to bring forward a conversion of the mill building into a hostel with some limited enabling mixed use development within the curtilage. If a redevelopment scheme is not brought forward soon there is a risk of the building being beyond repair. The mill building is a heritage asset which lies within the Rakewood Conservation Area and a need to therefore consider any suitable redevelopment options.

3. Linkages

The Connect2 project secures the surface treatment of the canal footpath but there is a need to add interest to this route which forms the critical linkage between the stations at Smithy Bridge and Littleborough with the lake itself. A scheme has yet to be developed but, if accepted by the Council, the parcels of land around the Akzo could be developed as a sculpture trail, enhanced landscaping and ecological interest. This route would also form part of the completion of the Roch Valley Trail initiative.

A critical part of the initiative is to secure a high quality route from the canal through the former Akzo Nobel car park to Hollingworth Lake. In addition, the opportunity to provide alternative off street pedestrian or cycle routes through the Akzo site, or via the canal and adjoining

Page3 of 4 97

farmland is being explored. This would complete the link from Durn through the station as well as relieving pressure on existing parking facilities. This could ultimately free up the Lakeside car park for a leisure development.

4. Recommendation

Members are recommended to;

1. Note the progress now being made in respect of Littleborough Waterside as set out in this report. 2. Comment on the emerging Masterplan ideas for the wider area 3. Note and comment on any public consultation to be given to the initiative. 4. Agree to receive further reports on the progress of the initiative.

For further information relating to this report please contact Peter Rowlinson, Service Director – Planning and Regulation on (01706) 924307 or Mark Robinson, Chief Planning Officer on (01706) 924308

Peter Rowlinson Service Director - Planning and Regulation Service

4 of Page4 98

Agenda Item 21

REPORT FOR INFORMATION

Agenda item no:

Township Committees May 2011

Report of the Service Director Planning and Regulation

Section 106 planning agreements (Development Contributions)

Wards affected: All Report Author: Mark Robinson/Rebecca Coley

Telephone: (01706) 924308/924315

This report sets out:

1. Work undertaken to identify the scale of income held by the Council from Section 106 planning agreements, or other planning obligations, in connection with planning permissions;

2. Procedures for closer scrutiny of the collection, monitoring and spending of monies received from planning permissions, including the pooling of 106 resources with other funding;

3. Suggested arrangements for greater engagement with the Township Committees over the future allocation and spending of monies,

1. It is recommended that Members:

1.1 Note the completion of initial work to identify the scale of historic 106 income received by the Council from planning permissions as of 1 April 2011 1.2 Note the implementation of new procedures within Planning and Finance Services to support closer monitoring and spending of income from planning permissions 1.3 Note the installation of new ICT software within the Planning Service enabling the closer scrutiny and breaking down of Section 106 resources by payment type eg open space, and within Township areas 1.4 Note the intention to present further reports to Townships in respect of open space confirming resources held and allocation of spend, and to align future developer contributions may be more closely aligned with Township priorities; 1.5 Express satisfaction with the work to date on Section 106 agreements, and proposed arrangements, but recognising that further work is now required to allocate resources and align spending with Township priorities

Page 99

2. Reasons for recommendation: 2.1 In July 2008, Cabinet received a Fixed Play Scrutiny report that made a series of recommendations and requests to identify improvements to processes relating to Section 106 planning agreements. A number of recommendations specifically related to the Planning Service, including the identification of funding for a dedicated Section 106 Officer post to manage the process.

2.2 Reports have been presented to various Council Committees since this time. Most recently, Townships received a report in September 2010 setting out a series of proposals for improvements in the collection, recording and tracking of spending of developer (Section 106) contributions received in connection with planning permissions. The first stage of this work to confirm the scale of historic resources is in the process of completion and being verified by Finance at the time of report preparation. The most significant portion of resources held relates to recreational open space where monies will ultimately be broken down into Township budgets for local allocation and spend.

2.3 Since the appointment of an Officer in January 2011, new procedures have been introduced across Planning and Finance Services to enable the closer scrutiny of payments received from existing planning permissions and to support future monitoring of spend. These will continue to be developed and an internal audit planned later in 2011 as a further test. This report seeks to update Townships on the work undertaken since January 2011, and to seek Member views on the next steps in this process.

3. Alternatives and risks considered: 3.1 To not set out detailed procedures in respect of these matters has lead to a less organised system where it has not been possible to identify, manage and accurately keep track of developer contributions made and ensure that they are spent in the most efficient and effective manner possible. A clear and defined system, managed by a dedicated Officer, would give certainty and clarity to developers, planners and elected members as to the scale of 106 resources held and its effective management. 3.3 Where monies are paid to the Council to satisfy the terms of a planning obligation, there is a requirement this be refunded in full, if not spent in accordance with the terms of any agreement. Increasingly, and in the current economic climate, developers are insisting on clauses being inserted into agreements requiring the Council provide written evidence as to how any monies paid have been spent. If unmanaged, there is clearly a danger where spending does not occur within timescales set by an agreement that any contribution would have to be refunded.

4. Consultation undertaken/proposed: 4.1 Various reports relating to the setting of up of new procedures to monitor income and spend from planning agreements have been presented to Council Committees. There has been broad Member support for improvements and greater transparency to be made to this process.

Page 100 5 Main text of report: 5.1 Developer contributions in respect of planning applications are a long- established practice which is considered to be an acceptable way of mitigating any adverse impact upon local services and facilities which may be caused by a new development. The scope of these contributions is not limited to any specific categories, however all such agreements, known collectively as planning obligations, must only be sought when certain tests are met. Specifically, contributions should only be sought where they are:

(i) Necessary to make the proposed development acceptable in planning terms; (ii) Directly related to the proposed development; (iii) Fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the proposed development; and 5.2 Generally developers enter into a legal agreement with the Council, called a Section 106 agreement, which outlines the contribution required and what it is for. The Council frequently enters into such agreements in respect of major developments in the Borough, and these generally relate to three types of provision – affordable housing, recreational open space and highways improvements. Any monies received from developments taking place must be spent in accordance with the terms of any agreement and/or planning policies, and must be for the benefit of the occupiers of the new development, without which the development could not acceptably proceed. Spending need not be immediate and may take place over several years in accordance with an agreement. 5.3 The Planning Service has become more proactive in this area and is encouraged to seek contributions to mitigate the impact of development from a much wider range of developments. Recent policy developments, backed by Government guidance, have led to a situation where the Council is seeking contributions from a wider range of developments, including a significant number of minor developments. This is now resulting in a greater number of proposals for which contributions are being negotiated by Officers and secured by way of agreement such as improvements to sustainable transport infrastructure, educational facilities, public realm and off site landscaping. Increasing the number of transactions made requires closer accounting and scrutiny of these payments made.

Identifying the scale of 106 monies held by the Council

5.4 Reports setting out proposals for the collection, recording and tracking of spending of Section 106 contributions were considered by various Council Committees. This included the funding of a post against income ie an admin charge levied on developer contributions to better manage this process. The admin charge was approved by Cabinet. An Officer was subsequently recruited in early 2011 to capture the scale of historic resources and has introduced new ideas and ways of working in this area. New procedures are in place including the regular monitoring of new income. These procedures will continue to be developed but so far appear to be working well.

5.5 As a result of voluntary staff departures and the request upon the service to make further efficiencies under Phase 2 and 3 of the Efficiency Programme, this Officer has assumed a new role but will continue to have a management

Page 101 overview of the process. Having captured the existing position, the next stage of the project is to allocate to appropriate projects and implement the existing resources. This will be undertaken by other posts within the Planning Service in conjunction with staff in services such as Environmental Management and partner agencies such as Link 4 Life. Budget management will be undertaken between Finance and Planning Services.

5.6 In respect of open space where planning policies require an element of local spend an option now exists to report income held across each Township. At the same time to aligning any works for the provision and maintenance of existing open space against Township priorities.

5.7 These procedures should avoid the need for any future back capturing work to be undertaken and support the easier monitoring and spending of any contributions received from planning permissions. The scale of income held was being verified by Finance at the time of report preparation. A verbal update will therefore be made to the Township meetings.

Future procedures and monitoring arrangements 5.8 The Planning Service has become more proactive in developer negotiations including taking opportunities where possible to align any contributions from proposed developments with other funding sources. This strategy can already be seen to offer increased income to the Council through developer contributions, notably recreational open space. Members are advised that since August 2008, in excess of £2m has already been negotiated in developer contributions towards a wider range of off site improvements including open space, affordable housing, public transport, footpaths and highway improvement schemes. Further significant developer contributions are expected from emerging proposals. Members are advised these will not be reflected in any income reported. These contributions can only be expected where a development occurs in future. Any payments made may well be linked to the commencement and/or occupation or completion of that relevant development. In respect of significant development proposals, any financial receipt may therefore be phased over several years.

Recreational Open Space Payments 5.9 The Planning Service negotiates with developers to secure open space contributions on major housing schemes. This is either through the provision and maintenance of an open space play facility on site, or through off site contributions towards such facilities, to increase the overall provision and quality of open space across the Borough. As with other local authorities the Council’s adopted policies require open space contributions to apply to all residential development, rather than larger schemes alone. These smaller contributions were not previously being sought but carry a spending requirement in respect of local open space provision and maintenance. An evidence base of existing and proposed areas of open space to identify open space needs and deficiency across the Borough was developed during 2010. This is supporting the development of Township Green Infrastructure plans. This is now held on a digital mapping system within the Planning Service enabling Officers to explain to developers how monies from a particular development site could be used within a local area. With this in place, the

Page 102 collection of smaller contributions from planning permissions commenced in October 2010. Based on current development rates, this has the potential to generate a further £120 - £150, 000 per annum across the Borough towards local open space maintenance and improvement.

Role of Township Committees 5.10 In respect of local open space improvements, there is an opportunity to agree funding priorities for open space and play improvements with each of the Townships. The identification of these deficiencies and potential projects can be linked to the work to develop Township Green Infrastructure plans which will be reported to Townships for adoption during 2011. Once a set of priorities has been endorsed by Townships, this can then be used by Officers to identify how existing unspent monies might be utilised, and also to align emerging development proposals requiring open space provision to the Township priorities for allocation of resources. Once this process is operational it is hoped this reporting can be extended to cover other types of developer contribution. 5.11 A new ICT system has been installed within the Planning service to support this process. This enables a record of income to be broken down into the Township areas, providing not only reports of the scale of income available within the Township area, but a record of spending within a financial year. Updated reports on income held and spending against the agreed Township priorities could be presented on a six monthly basis to the Township Action and Resources Committees with an annual report presented to the Township Committee. This annual report would confirm other types of contribution held such as affordable housing which may be spent at a Borough wide level. 5.12 Further reports on recreational open space and suggestions for improvements within the Townships will be each of the Townships for comments and approval. These will link to the Township Green Infrastructure plans and other sources of funding such as Connect2 and respond to initiatives such as Roch Valley Trail, Littleborough Waterside and the Middleton Townscape Heritage Initiative.

Pooling of Section 106 income with other funding sources 5.13 The Planning Service is taking a more proactive stance with development proposals and significant sums have already been secured within recent agreements, or are being negotiated in emerging development proposals. If coordinated effectively, linking emerging development projects within areas with existing or future 106 contributions together creates an opportunity to maximise community benefits, particularly if added to other sources of funding such as Priority Investment Fund, Heritage Lottery or Transport Strategy Fund. To support this, Members may be aware that the Sustainability and Regeneration Projects teams are relocating into the Planning and Regulation Service during May 2011. In conjunction with the 106 agreement work, this will allow the service to take a wider and holistic view of development opportunities and link projects and sources of funding. Members are advised the Service Director or Chief Planning Officer attend the Council’s Asset Management Group enabling coordination to be made between 106 resources and emerging development projects, and any other Council spending programmes.

Page 103 6 Personnel Implications: 6.1 The implications of this report can be met from existing staffing resources.

7. Financial Implications: 7.1 A post to support the monitoring process will be met from income from a 4% Admin charge levied on developer contributions as approved by Cabinet in July 2009. Members are advised since this decision was taken, more recent national guidance is encouraging all authorities to adopt this approach to support closer auditing of income and spending.

8. Conclusions: 8.1 Members are asked to note the work undertaken to date to establish the scale of Section 106 resources within the Council, and support proposals for closer monitoring and allocation of monies received. Members are also requested to comment on the suggested improvements to, wherever possible, align spending of income received from planning agreements to Township priorities. It is recognised this is work in progress and further reports will be taken to Township Committees in September to seek comments on the further improvement of the process.

For further information and background papers: For further information about this report or access to any background papers please contact Mark Robinson, Chief Planning Officer Tel: 01706 924308 or Rebecca Coley, Team Leader – Development Management Tel: 01706 924315

Peter Rowlinson Service Director - Planning and Regulation

Page 104 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 105 APPENDIX 1

PENNINES TOWNSHIP FUNDS REPORT 2010/11

% Actual % Actual + OVERALL SUMMARY - REVENUE 2010/11 £ Spend Committed Budget b/f (2009/10) 7,600 91.30% 100.00% Base Budget 2010/11 162,600 Transfer from other funds/services 2010/11 42,700 Budget Available 2010/11 212,900 Budgets transferred to other services/Actuals 194,384 Commitments 18,516 Total Actual + Commitments 212,900 Budget Remaining 2010/11 -

Forecast Outturn 212,900 Potential under/(over)spend 2010/11 - Page 106

Base Income/ Budget Balance b/f Revised Total to Budget Adjustments Actuals to Committed remaining Grants/Contributions 2009/10 Budget Period 2010/11 2010/11 Period £ to Period £ 2010/11 £ 2010/11 £ £ £ £ Community Grants Fund 1,100 15,000 - 16,100 14,826 1,274 16,100 - Pennines in Bloom Fund 5,000 - - 5,000 (1,667) 6,667 5,000 - Maintenance Contracts Fund - - 4,500 4,500 4,079 421 4,500 - Children & Young People Priority Fund - 15,000 - 15,000 14,400 600 15,000 - Environment Priority Fund 1,500 39,000 - 40,500 40,500 - 40,500 - Leisure & Recreation Priority Fund - 39,000 - 39,000 35,800 3,200 39,000 - Highways Priority Fund - 30,000 - 30,000 28,350 1,650 30,000 - Emergency Pressures Fund - 24,600 (4,500) 20,100 15,423 4,677 20,100 - Recession Fund - - 10,000 10,000 9,973 27 10,000 - Events Fund - - 5,000 5,000 5,000 - 5,000 - Health & Well Being Partnership Fund - - 19,800 19,800 19,800 - 19,800 - Community Cohesion Fund - - 7,900 7,900 7,900 - 7,900 -

Total 7,600 162,600 42,700 212,900 194,384 18,516 212,900 -

Available funds 2010/11 - Agenda Item 22

REPORT FOR INFORMATION

Agenda item no:

Pennines Township Committee 24 May 2011

Report of the Township Manager

Pennines Township Funds Review 2010/11

Wards affected: All Pennines Wards Report Author: Jill Hodkinson Township Manager

Telephone: (01706) 924351

The purpose of this report is to update Members on the revenue and capital expenditure during 2010/11

1. It is recommended that Members:

1.1 Note the expenditure, commitments and balances for Pennines Township revenue and capital funds (Appendix 1 and 2).

1.2 Note the detail of Pennines Township Funds 2010/11 contained in Appendix 3.

1.3 Note that Members will be asked to approve the allocation of Township Funds 2011/12, to proposed funding streams based on the review of the previous year’s funds, during June 2011.

1.4 Note improvements to the procedures and systems for administering of the Township funds have been achieved in 2010/11 with further developments planned in 2011/12 to share best practice across the Townships and improve monitoring processes.

2. Reasons for recommendation :

2.1 Management of the Pennines Township Fund is delegated to the Pennines Township Fund Grant Sub-Committee.

2.2 Pennines Township funds are allocated to projects/schemes that benefit the Township’s community and environment, and realise the Township priorities.

Page 1 of 3 Page 107 E:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\6\5\5\AI00002556\$xqvfphxm.doc

2.3 To enable Committee to monitor and review the use of the Pennines Township Funds to ensure continued efficient and effective use of Township Funds.

3. Alternatives and risks considered:

3.1 No alternatives have been considered.

4. Consultation undertaken/proposed.

4.1 Committee receives regular monitoring reports about the use of the funds.

4.2 Any proposal for funding requires support from at least one Member. All proposals will continue to be consulted on as appropriate with Members, residents and other stakeholders.

5. Review of Pennines Township Funds 2010/2011

5.1 Members note expenditure, commitments and balances for Pennines Township revenue and capital funds (Appendix 1 and 2). Summary of the final outturn for financial year 2010/11 as agreed with Accountancy will be reported to the next scheduled funding committee.

5.2 A review of Pennines Township revenue and capital funds is being undertaken. Information from this review will be used to inform the proposed allocation of Township Funds to funding streams in 2011/12.

5.3 Members note all funded projects/schemes met one or more of the Township priorities and complied with the terms and conditions of the funds.

5.4 Procedures and systems implemented in 2010/11 have improved the administration of Township funds and future developments are planned in 2011/12 to achieve enhanced monitoring of projects/schemes and clarity.

6. Pennines Township Funds 2011/12

6.1 Members will be asked to consider officer recommendations on the allocation of Township Funds for 2011/12 to proposed funding streams, based on the review of the previous year’s funds, in June 2011.

6.2 Terms and conditions for Township revenue and capital funds have been revised in line with findings during the administration of funds during 2010/11. Members will be asked to agree to the terms and conditions and delegation process in June 2011.

Page 2 of 3 Page 108 E:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\6\5\5\AI00002556\$xqvfphxm.doc

6.3 Township funds procedures and systems were audited in 2010/11 and recommendations were made to improve the administration of the funds. Audit’s recommendations have been implemented with further developments planned in 2011/12 to share best practice across the Townships and improve the monitoring process with Services.

7. Personnel implications

7.1 There are no personnel implications arising from this report.

8. Financial implications

8.1 Committee will receive regular reports to enable Members to monitor the use of the Pennines Township Funds to ensure best use of available resources.

8.2 Township Funds are monitored on a monthly basis and financial monitoring reports will continue to be presented to future Committees on a regular basis.

9. Conclusions

9.1 Members have the information to note the allocation of 2010/11 Pennines Township Funds to reflect the priorities in the Township Plan.

9.2 In accordance with Audit’s recommendations, an improved and more transparent process for the administration of Township Funds has been agreed.

For further information and background papers: For further information about this report or access to any background papers please contact Jill Hodkinson, Township Management, Floor 6, Telegraph House, Baillie Street, Rochdale, OL16 1JD. Tel: 01706 924858. or e-mail [email protected]

Jill Hodkinson Acting Head of Townships Performance and Transformation

Page 3 of 3 Page 109 E:\moderngov\Data\AgendaItemDocs\6\5\5\AI00002556\$xqvfphxm.doc

This page is intentionally left blank

Page 110 APPENDIX 2

PENNINES TOWNSHIP FUNDS REPORT 2010/11

% Actual % Actual + OVERALL SUMMARY - CAPITAL 2010/11 £ Spend Committed Budget b/f (2009/10) 1,000 99.10% 100.00% Base Budget 2010/11 78,000 Transfer from other funds/services 2010/11 - Budget Available 2010/11 79,000 Budgets transferred to other services/Actuals 78,288 Commitments 712 Total Actual + Commitments 79,000 Budget Remaining 2010/11 -

Forecast Outturn 79,000 Potential under/(over)spend 2010/11 -

Budget Balance b/f Budget Actual to Committed Total to Forecast remaining Difference Capital Fund Schemes 2009/10 2010/11 Period to Period Period 2010/11 Page 111 2010/11 £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ 3MN-07 Cornfield Street/Pennine Drive - Waiting Restrictions - 8,500 8,500 - 8,500 - 8,500 - 3MN-08 Cedar Lane Waiting Restrictions - 2,500 2,500 - 2,500 - 2,500 - LL10/02 Village Medical Centre Waiting Restrictions - 3,500 3,500 - 3,500 - 3,500 - LL10/05 Road signage surrounding Hollingworth Lake - 8,000 8,000 - 8,000 - 8,000 - SF10/02 Halifax Road Limited Waiting Restrictions - 3,500 3,500 - 3,500 - 3,500 - PTC10/06 Weir Road Footway Slurry Sealing - 7,782 7,782 - 7,782 - 7,782 - PTC10/07 Stock Grove Footway Slurry Sealing - 2,612 2,612 - 2,612 - 2,612 - PTC10/08 Bealcroft Close Footway Slurry Sealing - 2,475 2,475 - 2,475 - 2,475 - PTC10/09 Bealcroft Walk Footway Slurry Sealing - 935 935 - 935 - 935 - PTC10/10 Collier Avenue Footway Slurry Sealing - 3,399 3,399 - 3,399 - 3,399 - PTC10/11 Calderbrook Road Footway Slurry Sealing - 5,940 5,940 - 5,940 - 5,940 - PTC10/12 Shakespeare Close Footway Slurry Sealing - 1,485 1,485 - 1,485 - 1,485 - PTC10/13 Temple Lane Footway Slurry Sealing - 1,980 1,980 - 1,980 - 1,980 - PTC10/14 Chelburn View Footway Slurry Sealing - 2,365 2,365 - 2,365 - 2,365 - PTC10/15 Centre Vale Close Footway Slurry Sealing - 1,815 1,815 - 1,815 - 1,815 - PTC10/16 Rakewood Road Improvements - 21,500 21,500 - 21,500 - 21,500 - PTC10/25 Lightburn Avenue Footpath Reconstruction - 712 - 712 712 - 712 ------Unallocated/retained funds 2010/11 ------

Total - 79,000 78,288 712 79,000 - 79,000 -

Available funds 2010/11 - Page 112 APPENDIX 3 PENNINES TOWNSHIP YEAR END REVENUE & CAPITAL FUNDS REVIEW 2010/11

REVENUE Fund Amount Review Grants remain popular within the Pennines Township with 100% of the allotted sum being £15,000 distributed across 19 approved grants over the financial year. This Fund would have been £789 per oversubscribed without the additional provisions from the Emergency Pressures Fund and the Community Grants Fund grant on Events Fund. This year the Township Team have implemented new Terms & Conditions in order average to address issues highlighted by Audit, with further measures to be implemented in the new financial year.

Due to the continuing popularity of Grants within Pennines Township, Officers will recommend to Members in June 2011 that the Grants Fund is continued depending on the total Funds directly available to Pennines Township.

77% of the Fund was spent by the end of the financial year on 5 schemes. This Fund continues to Emergency Pressures be relevant in addressing local urgent issues raised by local groups, although the unpredictable £20,100 Fund nature of this Fund lends itself to be either significantly over or under spent. This largest under- Page 113 spend for this year has been addressed in Note 1 at the end of this document.

Officers will recommend to Members in June 2011 that the Emergency Pressures Fund is continued but with a proportionate reduction depending on the total Funds directly available to Pennines Township.

This Fund was established to cover annual community event road closures, all Civic flag and Maintenance Contracts £4,500 flagpole maintenance, and various Ward skip hire for local clean ups; 91% of the Fund has been Fund spent this year.

Officers will recommend to Members in June 2011 that this Fund is reviewed and continued depending on the total Funds directly available to Pennines Township.

This Fund was 96% spent/committed to youth related schemes. All the schemes have been Children and Young started in 2010, but issues have arisen due to staffing shortages affecting capacity to complete £15,000 People Priority Fund the schemes. Work is underway by the Youth Service to request Members consider extensions to the existing schemes to continue delivery into 2011/12 at no further cost to the Township.

Officers will recommend, subject to Members agreeing this remains a Strategic Priority, in June 2011 that this Fund is continued at a reduced level depending on the total Funds directly available to Pennines Township, and agreement with the Youth Service on their capacity to deliver additional schemes.

Page 1 of 3 APPENDIX 3

Fund Amount Review This Fund was 100% allocated to 5 local schemes, most of which have been or are near completion (Pennines In Bloom remains an ongoing project into Summer 2011). As a newly Environment Priority Fund £39,000 established Fund, delays were incurred in defining, costing and delivering these new schemes, however this was addressed and resolved. It was agreed for a significant impact on the Township this investment would need to be repeated if possible in future years.

Officers will recommend, subject to Members agreeing this remains a Strategic Priority, in June 2011 that this Fund is continued at a similar level depending on the total Funds directly available to Pennines Township, and agreement with the Environmental Management on their capacity to deliver additional schemes.

99% of this Fund has been spent or is allocated against 4 schemes that have all but one been Leisure and Recreation £39,000 completed (Talented Athletes). This Fund was split between Link4Life and the Library Service; Priority Fund feedback and future requirements will be collated to assist in further Township decisions. Page 114 Officers will recommend, subject to Members agreeing this remains a Strategic Priority, in June 2011 that this Fund is continued at a similar level depending on the total Funds directly available to Pennines Township.

These funds were 95% spent on 4 schemes within the Township. Progress is continuing with Highways Priority Fund £30,000 works due to be fully completed by Summer 2011; the materials used on the road and path surfaces are warm weather dependent hence the delays in installation.

Officers will recommend, subject to Members agreeing this remains a Strategic Priority, in June 2011 that this Fund is continued at a similar level depending on the total Funds directly available to Pennines Township.

The funds were fully allocated to activities under the embryonic Pennines Business Group. Provisional agreement has now been obtained for this Group to form under MoorEnd Recession Fund £10,000 Development Trust umbrella and it is expected activities will be delivered over this Summer/Autumn. Post-delivery feedback will be obtained to inform future Township decisions.

This funding was provided from external funding to the Council; no further funding is expected during 2011/12.

These funds were fully issued to five local groups to run regular community events within the Events Fund £5,000 Township. No issues are apparent and the events have started or are being planned as expected. Post-delivery feedback will be obtained to inform future Township decisions.

This funding was provided from external funding to the Council; no further funding is expected during 2011/12.

Page 2 of 3 APPENDIX 3

Fund Amount Review These funds were fully issued to four local schemes within the Township. No issues are Kick Start Your Health apparent and the schemes have started as expected with delivery extensions agreed, due to £19,800 Fund funding delays. Post-delivery feedback will be obtained after July to inform future Township decisions.

This funding was provided from external funding to the Council; no further funding is expected during 2011/12.

These funds were fully issued to two local groups to run regular events within the main Parks of the Township. No issues are apparent and the events have been completed or are being Community Cohesion £7,900 planned until the end of Summer 2011. Post-delivery feedback will be obtained to inform future Township decisions.

This funding was provided from external funding to the Council; no further funding is expected during 2011/12.

Page 115

CAPITAL Fund Amount Review Pennines Township Capital Fund was 99% spent/committed to 16 Highways schemes across the Township. These schemes are planned for completion by Summer 2011 primarily due to the surface materials used being suitable for warm weather application only. £78,000 Capital Fund The fund for 2010/11 was oversubscribed with 81 Highways projects being submitted for the Base Budget Service Group consideration under Township and Local Transport Policy funding. All Township Capital schemes have been commissioned and funds transferred to Impact Partnership.

NOTE 1 As per the Pennines Township report submitted to and agreed at the 8 March 2011 Pennines Township Committee, any under-spends from the above Funds were reallocated to additional Highways schemes within the Pennines Township. A detailed report will be submitted to the next Pennines Township Grants and Finance Sub-Committee.

Page 3 of 3 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 116