Public Document Pack CORPORATE SERVICES Service Director Linda Fisher

LEGAL & DEMOCRATIC SERVICE David Joy Head of Legal & Democratic Service

GOVERNANCE AND COMMITTEE SERVICES TEAM PO Box 15, Town Hall, Rochdale, OL16 1AB DX22831 ROCHDALE

Tel: (01706) 647474 Fax: (01706) 924705 Web site: www.rochdale.gov.uk

To: All Members of Middleton Enquiries to: Alison Leonard Township Committee Extension: 4711 Date: 16 May 2012

Dear Councillor,

MIDDLETON TOWNSHIP COMMITTEE

You are requested to attend the meeting of Middleton Township Committee to be held in Demesne Community Centre - Asby Close, Middleton on Thursday, 24 May 2012 commencing at 6.15 pm.

The Agenda meeting will be held on Tuesday 22 nd May 2012 at 6.15pm at the Council Offices, Sadler Street, Middleton.

The agenda and supporting papers are attached.

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

Yours Faithfully

Linda Fisher Service Director

Middleton Township Committee Membership 2012/2013 Councillor Malcolm Boriss Councillor Philip Burke Councillor Jonathan Burns Councillor Neil Emmott Councillor Susan Emmott Councillor Alan Godson Councillor Pat Greenall Councillor Michael Holly Councillor Peter Joinson Councillor Donna Martin Councillor Lil Murphy Councillor Linda Robinson Councillor Carol Wardle Councillor June West Councillor Peter Williams

1

2

ROCHDALE METROPOLITAN BOROUGH COUNCIL

MIDDLETON TOWNSHIP COMMITTEE

Thursday, 24 May 2012 at 6.15 pm

Demesne Community Centre - Asby Close, Middleton

A G E N D A

Apologies for Absence

1. Appointment of Chair for 2012/2013 2. Appointment of Vice-Chair for 2012/2013 3. Declaration of Interests Members are requested to indicate at this stage, any items on the agenda in which they intend to declare an interest. Members are reminded that, in accordance with the Local Government Act 2000 and the Council’s Code of Conduct, they must declare the nature of any personal or prejudicial interest and, if the interest is prejudicial, withdraw from the meeting during consideration of the item. 4. OPEN FORUM (6.15pm - 6.45pm) Half an hour has been set aside for members of the public to raise any issues relevant to the business of the Committee and the Township.

PRESENTATION 5. Edgar Wood Middleton Heritage Trust - Sam Bamford Event

MINUTES 6. Middleton Township Committee 7. Middleton Township Planning Sub Committee

ITEMS FOR DECISION – NON EXECUTIVE 8. Middleton Township Delegation Arrangements 9. Middleton Township Appointments 2012/2013 10. School Governing Body Vacancies

ITEMS FOR DECISION - EXECUTIVE 11. Middleton Traffic Initiative - 26T Limitation Scheme

3 12. Middleton Parish C of E Primary - Objections to the Proposed 20mph School Zone & Associated Traffic Calming 13. Highways Capital Programme 2012/13 14. 2012 / 13 Highway Revenue Report 15. Street Services Matched Funding 16. Review of Middleton Township Funds 2011 - 2012 17. Middleton Holiday at Home (Head of Townships to report)

ITEM FOR CONSULTATION 18. Oldham and Rochdale Joint Housing Strategy

ITEMS FOR INFORMATION 19. Section 106 Planning Agreements (Development Contributions) 20. National Planning Policy Framework and Neighbourhood Planning

4 Public Document Pack Agenda Item 6

MIDDLETON TOWNSHIP COMMITTEE

MINUTES OF MEETING Thursday, 8 March 2012

PRESENT: Councillor Neil Emmott (in the Chair); Councillors Boriss, Phil Burke, Susan Emmott, Fitzsimons, Holly, Murphy, Robinson, Wardle and West

OFFICERS: J. Hodkinson (Head of Townships), S. Bloomer, M. Roberts and E Holliday (Customers and Communities Service), C. Swift and J. Taylor (Support for Learning Service), P. Simpson (Planning and Regulation Service), K. Moore and D. Choularton (Township Management), and A. Leonard (Legal and Democratic Service).

Also in Attendance: S. Reay (Impact Partnership) and J. Taylor (Link4Life)

Apologies for Absence: Councillor Jonathan Paul Burns, Councillor Alan James Godson, Councillor Donna Elizabeth Martin, Councillor Maureen Rowbotham and Councillor Peter James Williams

DECLARATION OF INTERESTS 88 In accordance with the code of conduct for Councillors and Co-opted Members, Councillors Boriss, Phil Burke, Susan Emmott, Holly, Wardle and West declared personal and prejudicial interests in regard to the Open Forum question (Minute 89d) insofar as they were Members of the Middleton Township Planning Sub-Committee and left the room during consideration of the question.

OPEN FORUM 89 The following matters were raised under the Open Forum:- a) Rhodes Business Park Mr P Joinson sought clarification on proposals for a waste management facility at Rhodes Business Park and whether residents would be consulted on any proposals. The Service Director for Planning and Regulation Services informed the Committee that within the Greater Manchester Waste Development Plan the proposed usage for Rhodes was for ‘clean uses’ only and that residents would be consulted in the normal way as any other planning applications. b) Street Lighting and Middleton Gardens Mr T Ettenfield asked why projects like street lighting and Middleton Gardens were being funded when the Council was having to make efficiency savings.

In regard to street lighting, it was commented this project would generate efficiencies in the long term as the current lighting stock was being replaced by more energy efficient stock.

In regard to Middleton Gardens, it was commented that this project was part of the regeneration of Middleton Town Centre and was intended to help to bring shoppers into the Town and the associated economic benefits. c) Mill Fold Road Ms A Hardwick requested that the Committee continue to support the residents of Mill Fold Road in the provision of a residents parking scheme which they had been pursuing for several years. The Chair indicated that this matter was on the Agenda for consideration and would be moved to after the Open Forum.

Page 1 d) Doctors Surgery Mr P Stott requested that the Committee support the building of a doctors surgery on the site of the former ‘Nowster’ Public House. The Service Director for Planning and Regulation Services indicated that all relvant issues regarding the scheme would be set out in the report to the Planning Sub-Committee.

(Note: Councillors Boriss, Phil Burke, Susan Emmott, Holly, Wardle and West left the room during consideration of the above item)

TOWNSHIP COMMITTEE UPDATES 90 a) Middleton Tapestry The Chair invited comments in relation to an appropriate place to site the Middleton Tapestry. The Committee were informed that the Middleton Arena had been looked at in the past but an appropriate area which could accommodate both the size and weight of the tapestry could not been found.

Officers from the Township were looking into other appropriate venues for the tapestry and would report back to Members in due course. b) Tourism in Middleton It was agreed that this item be deferred until a future meeting of the Committee.

MINUTES 91 DECIDED – that the Minutes of the Meeting of the Township Committee held on 12 th January 2012 be approved as a correct record.

MIDDLETON TOWNSHIP PLANNING SUB-COMMITTEE 92 DECIDED – that the Minutes of the Meetings of the Middleton Township Planning Sub-Committee held on 16 th November 2011 and 14 th December 2011 be approved as a correct record.

SCHOOL GOVERNING BODY VACANCIES - AUTHORITY GOVERNORS 93 The Service Director – Support for Learning outlined current Local Authority Governor vacancies and sought appointments. DECIDED- That the following appointments to School Governing Body vacancies be made as follows: • Bowlee Park Primary School – defer until the next meeting • Little Heaton CE Primary School – Councillor M Holly

MILL FOLD ROAD RESIDENT’S PRIVILEGED PARKING SCHEME INVESTIGATIVE REPORT 94 The Committee considered the report of the Report of the Head of Highways and Engineering Services which outlined the results of the recent consultation exercises on the proposed residents privileged parking scheme on Mill Fold Road.

The recommendation was put forward as representations have been made to the Middleton Township Committee, by local residents, relating to parking on Mill Fold Road. Chiefly these complaints revolved around shoppers and local workers parking within the residential areas.

Residents have requested that a resident’s only parking scheme be introduced. This is in line with the proposals reported to Committee in the ‘Middleton Town Centre Parking Policy’ produced by the Impact Partnership Councillors and Officers met to discuss these issues and agreed to investigate the possibility of introducing a ‘Resident Permit Holders Only’ zone to control parking.

Page 2

Public consultation has returned a level of support less than 75%. The current council policy states ‘proposed schemes should normally be supported by at least 75% of the affected residents prior to it being introduced.’ DECIDED – that the Cabinet be requested to review the policy on Residents Privileged Parking Schemes, specifically relating to the percentage levels of support required to progress a scheme.

JOSHUA LANE, MILLS HILL ROAD & ADJACENT STREETS, MIDDLETON, PROPOSED NEW WAITING RESTRICTIONS 95 The Committee considered the report of the Report of the Head of Highways and Engineering Services which advised Members of objections received to the proposed introduction of new waiting restrictions on Joshua Lane, Mills Hill Road and Adjacent Streets and to present the response of the Head of Highways and Engineering Services to the objections received and to ask Members to decide whether the recommendations and amendments should or should not be implemented.

The recommednation was put forward as a decision needs to be made in respect of the objections received so that the scheme can be progressed and the new restrictions introduced. DECIDED – that the the Borough of Rochdale ((Civil Enforcement of Traffic Contraventions) (Various Streets) (Middleton Township) Order 2008) (Amendment) (No 28) Order relating to Joshua Lane, Mills Hill Road & adjacent streets, as outlined in Appendix ‘A’ of the submitted report be approved for implementation.

MIDDLETON TOWNSHIP PLAN 96 The Head of Townships introduced a report detailing the Township Plan for consultation with members and partners as part of the 2014/15 vision work and development of the Corporate Plan.

The recommendations were put forward as the Council is currently developing radical strategies and plans for 2014/15 when Council services will be delivered in the context of a number of challenges including further budget reductions. This has implications for the content and delivery of Township Plans 2012/15. In July 2011 members agreed to align this year’s timescale to enable the Township Plan to be developed as part of the Council’s 2014/15 visioning work and Corporate Plan.

Each year each Township Plan is reviewed in readiness for the following year. This includes discussions with Elected Members and the relevant Service Directors and public agencies. Discussions between the various Township sub-groups follow. The Township Plan is then finalised so that Service Directors can start service planning for the following year in September.

Alternatives considered: There were no alternatives considered. DECIDED- that (1) the Township Plan be approved as a basis for consultation with services and partners. (2) any further amendments required to finalise the plan be delegated to the Head of Townships in consultation with the Chair and Vice Chair of this Committee. (3) it be noted that relevant Council services business plans will show how they will deliver the actions in the Township Plans.

Page 3 (4) it be noted that as agreed by Cabinet in March 2011 the Township Chairs and Portfolio Holder will now approve relevant business plans to ensure local service delivery. (5) it be noted that in the event of service budgets or external funding not being available to deliver actions in their plan; Township Funds may have to be allocated.

NEED FOR ADDITIONAL RECEPTION CLASS PLACES IN MIDDLETON TOWNSHIP 2012-15 AND PLANNED ADMISSION NUMBERS FOR SEPTEMBER 2013 97 The Service Director – Support for Learning presented a report detailing an assessment of the need for extra Reception Class places in Middleton Township from September 2012 to September 2015, and proposals for Planned Admission Numbers for September 2013 for both Primary and Secondary schools.

Members were asked to consider this report and give their views on: 1) The strategy for meeting the expected increased demand for Reception Class places from September 2012 onwards. 2) The proposed Planned Admission Numbers for primary and secondary schools for September 2013. DECIDED- that the assessment of the need for additional reception class places in Middleton Township 2012 to 2015, and planned admission numbers September 2013 as detailed in the report be noted.

SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING GUIDANCE - SHOP FRONTS AND SECURITY SHUTTERS 98 The Service Director for Planning and Regulation sought comments from the Sub-Committee on a proposal to produce Supplementary Planning Guidance in respect of shop front and security shutters. The Department for Communities and Local Government had written a letter to all local authority Chief Planning Officers stating that it was important to ensure a balance is struck between maximising property security and protecting the look and character of our high streets and that planning authorities should review their existing planning policies in this regard. DECIDED- That the report be noted.

SCOUT MOOR PROGRESS REPORT 99 The Service Director for Planning and Regulation introduced a report providing an update on the proposed Scout Moor Wind Farm expansion and the process for the application for development consent order to be made by the Developer to the Infrastructure Planning Commission.

Members were asked to: 1) Note the commencement of the pre-application process for the submission of a development consent order for a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP) to the Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC) for the proposed expansion of Scout Moor Wind Farm; 2) Note the statutory and non-statutory role of the Local Planning Authority as a consultee as set out in the Planning Act 2008 in the process of applying for a development consent order, and the likely timescales involved; 3) Note that joint working is taking place with both Rossendale District Council and Lancashire County Council as joint host authorities; 4) Note the significant resource requirement and that, as the Local Planning Authority is not the determining body, no planning application fee will be payable to the Council in this case.

Page 4 5) Note this is the first of a series of reports or presentations which Townships will receive throughout this process DECIDED- That the report be noted

Page 5 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 6 Public Document Pack Agenda Item 7

MIDDLETON TOWNSHIP PLANNING SUB COMMITTEE

MINUTES OF MEETING Wednesday, 18 January 2012

PRESENT: Councillor West (in the Chair); Councillors Boriss, Susan Emmott and Wardle

OFFICERS: R. Coley (Planning and Regulation Services), A. Leonard (Legal and Democratic Services)

Apologies for Absence: Councillor Philip Burke, Councillor Jonathan Paul Burns and Councillor Michael Holly

DECLARATION OF INTERESTS 4 There were no declarations of interest.

SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING GUIDANCE - SHOP FRONTS AND SECURITY SHUTTERS 5 The Service Director for Planning and Regulation sought comments from the Sub-Committee on a proposal to produce Supplementary Planning Guidance in respect of shop front and security shutters. DECIDED – That (1) the intention to produce, consult and formally adopt detailed design guidance for shop front and security shutters to be used in the future determination of planning applications and the investigation of breaches of planning control be supported; (2) the suggested improvements to the processing of planning applications for security shutters, in particular promotion of pre- application advice to obtain better information from applicants as to security fears, and greater consultation of Greater Manchester Police, be noted; (3) this Sub-Committee does not support any flexibility in respect of enforcement actions and recommends that Officers be authorised to implement Committee decisions on enforcement matters without further pressure.

FINDINGS OF INTERNAL AUDIT INTO SECTION 106 PLANNING AGREEMENTS (DEVELOPMENT CONTRIBUTIONS) 6 The Service Director for Planning and Regulation advised on the findings of a recent internal audit investigation into Section 106 Planning Agreements. DECIDED – That (1) positive findings of an internal audit into the procedures established within the Planning Service to record, monitor and allocate income and spending of monies received from Section 106 Agreements or developer contributions be noted; (2) it be noted that the suggested improvements made by the Auditor have already been implemented across the Planning Service; (3) satisfaction be expressed with regard to the procedures in place on Section 106 Planning Agreements and other planning obligations but that, in conjunction with the work on the green infrastructure plans and future development opportunities, it be noted further work is required to allocate resources and spending within Township priorities.

Page 7 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 8 Agenda Item 8

Subject: Status: For Publication Middleton Township Committee Sub- Committee and Delegation Arrangements 2012/2013 Report to : Middleton Township Committee Date: 24th May 2012

Report of: Service Director – Corporate Services Email: [email protected]

Report Author: Alison Leonard Tel: 01706 – 924711

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

Comments fro m Section 151 Officer N Statutory Officers: Monitoring Officer Y/N

1. PURPOSE OF REPORT

1.1. The recommendations are presented to enable the Committee to confirm its delegated decision making arrangements for the 2012/2013 Municipal Year.

2. RECOMMENDATIONS

2.1 The Sub-Committee structure of the Middleton Township Committee, comprising the Middleton Township Devolved Funding and Services Sub-Committee, Middleton Township Planning Sub-Committee and the Middleton Township Delegated Sub- Committee be confirmed.

2.2 The terms of reference of the Middleton Township Devolved Funding and Services Sub-Committee be noted;

2.3 The delegation arrangements to the Middleton Township Planning Sub-Committee, as contained within Development Control Scheme be noted;

2.4 The delegation arrangements to the Middleton Township Delegated Sub-Committee, as contained within the Scheme of Delegation to Township Committees be noted.

3. ALTERNATIVES AND RISKS CONSIDERED 3.1 The Township Committee could choose not to formally delegate business to the Devolved Funding and Devolved Services Sub-Committee. If the Township Committee wishes to continue delegating business on an ad hoc basis, this would not represent an efficient use of resources and would delay decision making. The Committee needs to agree delegation arrangements to ensure that decisions are made in accordance with relevant statutory and procedural requirements.

Version Number: 1 Page: 1 of 3

Page 9

4. MIDDLETON TOWNSHIP SUB-COMMITTEES 4.1 Middleton Township Devolved Funding and Services Sub-Committee Terms of Reference of the Middleton Devolved Funding and Services Sub-Committee To consider and determine the use and allocation of funds devolved to the Middleton Township Committee, following appropriate local consultation i.e. a. Middleton Township Fund b. Middleton Township Capital Allocation c. Voluntary Sector Grants (where devolved to Township) i.e. Middleton Community Centres; d. Health Gain Funding; e. Future devolved funding where referred to it by Middleton Township Committee - To ensure that all requirements and restrictions place on any devolved funding are met, or are capable of being met, before any decisions are made; - To refer any matter to the Middleton Township Committee for decision where the Sub- Committee considers it appropriate; - To review external funding opportunities and monitor the impact of secured external funding, such as Lottery or other external agencies; - To liaise with the other Middleton Township sub-groups and other groups to help harmonise the impact of available Township funding to meet Middleton Township Plan, regeneration and social inclusion priorities; - To consider and comment on feedback reports on how previously awarded grants have been used; - To approve and undertake commissions for services/projects linked to the implementation of Township Plan priorities;

- To implement the corporate devolution strategy; - To implement devolution in the identified devolved services, i.e. Highways and Engineering, Development Control, Environmental Management (part), Community Centres and Libraries; - To ensure service plans reflect Middleton needs in respect of the devolved services; - To ensure influence is brought to bear on the preparation of service plans to better fit Middleton needs in respect of the influenced services i.e. Schools, Child Care, Learners and Young People, Adult Care, Planning and Regulation, Bereavement Services, Waste and Recycling, Regeneration, Leisure Trust, Strategic Housing, Revenues and Benefits and Customer Services. - To approve of all proposals made by the identified sub-groups, including any commissioning or plans to move resources, or extra funding implications, linked to any aspect of the implementation of the Middleton Township Plan; - To monitor the implementation of the rest of the Middleton Township Plan via the sub- groups of the township; - To compile future versions of the Middleton Township Plan for approval by the Middleton Township Committee.

4.2 Middleton 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.

Version Number: 1 Page: 2 of 3

Page 10 4.3 Middleton 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. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

5.1 There are no direct financial implications to this report.

6. LEGAL IMPLICATIONS

6.1. The Committee is being asked to confirm its delegation arrangements to ensure that decisions are made in accordance with relevant and statutory procedural requirements.

7. PERSONNEL IMPLICATIONS

7.1 There are no personnel implications to this report.

8. RISK ASSESSMENT AND EQUALITIES IMPLICATIONS

8.1. The Township Committee determines its Sub-Committee structure in line with locally agreed procedures.

Background Papers Document Place of Inspection Corporate Service Director’s Office Legal and Democratic Services a. Rochdale MBC’s Constitution Town Hall b. Minutes of Middleton Township Rochdale Committee (26th May 2011) OL16 1AB

Version Number: 1 Page: 3 of 3

Page 11 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 12 Agenda Item 9

Subject: Middleton Township Committee – Status: For Publication Appointments 2012/2013

Report to : Middleton Township Committee Date: 24 th May 2012

Report of: Service Director – Corporate Services Email: [email protected]

Report Author: Alison Leonard Tel: 01706 -924711

Report path Middleton Township Committee for Decision (Non-Executive).

Comments from Se ction 151 Officer N Statutory Officers: Monitoring Officer Y/N

1. PURPOSE OF REPORT

1.1 To request that the Township Committee makes appropriate appointments, for the 2012/2013 Municipal Year; to the Township Sub-Committees including their Chairs, Vice Chairs and substitute members; and the appointment to various Working Groups and Other Bodies.

2. RECOMMENDATIONS

2.1 The Township Committee appoints Members to the Middleton Township Delegated Sub-Committee, the Middleton Township Planning Sub-Committee and to the Middleton Township Devolved Funding and Services Sub-Committee;

2.2 The Township Committee appoints the Chairs and Vice Chairs of the above mentioned Sub-Committees;

2.3 The Township Committee consider the appointment of Members to the Township Working Groups as detailed in the report;

2.4 The Township Committee is asked to appoint Members to various “Other Bodies” as detailed in the report

3. BACKGROUND

3.1 The appointment of Sub-Committees is required to enable the undertaking of delegated functions 3.2 The Constitution of the Council requires the Township Committee to appoint Chairs and Vice Chairs of their Sub-Committees.

Version Number: 1 Page: 1 of 5

Page 13 3.3 The Township Committee has considered the establishment of a number of Working Groups to which appointments are required. 3.4 There are a number of further Bodies to which the Township Committee appoints, or is invited to appoint. 4. APPOINTMENT OF SUBSTITUTE MEMBERS 4.1 The Township Committee is asked to appoint substitute Members to the Township’s Sub-Committees.

4.2 The options available to the Township Committee for substitution arrangements for Members of Township Committees comprise: -

(a) An absent Member may only call for a substitute Member from the same political group (b) Where appointments are made on a Ward basis, to allow for a Ward substitute from any political group to be identified by the absent Member (c) To allow for a substitute Member from any political group to be identified by the absent Member.

4.3 The Township Committee is asked to indicate its determined substitution arrangements when appointing Sub-Committee memberships.

In any event, the number of substitute Members appointed by a political group to a Sub- Committee cannot exceed the number of substantive Members appointed, up to a maximum of three 5. TOWNSHIP SUB-COMMITTEES

5.1 Members are asked to consider appointments to the following Sub-Committees and to appoint Chairs and Vice Chairs for the 2012/2013 Municipal Year. The appointments made in 2011/2012 are detailed below for information: -

Middleton Township Delegated Sub-Committee

Councillor Neil Emmott (Chair) Councillor West (Vice-Chair) Councillor Fitzsimons Councillor Murphy Councillor Rowbotham

Substitute Members – Councillors Holly and Williams

Middleton Township Planning Sub-Committee

Councillor West (Chair) Councillor Boriss (Vice-Chair) Councillor Philip Burke Councillor Burns Councillor Susan Emmott Councillor Holly Councillor Wardle

Substitute Members – Councillor Fitzsimons and Williams

Version Number: 1 Page: 2 of 5

Page 14

Middleton Devolved Funding and Devolved Services Sub-Committee

Councillor Neil Emmott (Chair) Councillor Godson Councillor West (Vice Chair) Councillor Holly Councillor Boriss Councillor Martin Councillor Philip Burke Councillor Murphy Councillor Burns Councillor Robinson Councillor Susan Emmott Councillor Rowbotham Councillor Fitzsimons Councillor Wardle Councillor Williams

6. TOWNSHIP WORKING GROUPS

6.1 The Committee is requested to appoint Members to the following Township Working Groups. The appointments made in 2011/2012 are detailed below for information: -

Middleton Environment Forum Councillor Neil Emmott (Chair) Councillor Martin (Voting Member) Councillor Boriss Voting Member) Councillor Murphy Councillor Burns Councillor Robinson Councillor Godson Councillor Rowbotham (voting Member) Councillor Susan Emmott (Voting Councillor Williams Member) Councillor Fitzsimons Councillor Wardle (voting Member) Councillor Godson Councillor West Councillor Holly (Voting Member) Councillor Williams

Middleton Regeneration and Transport Working Party Councillor Neil Emmott (Chair) Councillor Murphy Councillor Boriss Councillor Rowbotham Councillor Burns Councillor Wardle Councillor Godson Councillor West Councillor Holly

Middleton Children and Young People’s Working Party Councillor Martin (Chair) Councillor Philip Burke Councillor Burns Councillor Fitzsimons

Middleton Culture, Leisure and Tourism Working Party Councillor Burns (Chair) Councillor Holly Councillor Boriss Councillor Martin Councillor Philip Burke Councillor Murphy Councillor Neil Emmott Councillor Robinson Councillor Susan Emmott Councillor Rowbotham Councillor Fitzsimons Councillor Wardle Councillor Godson Councillor West Councillor Williams

Version Number: 1 Page: 3 of 5

Page 15

Middleton Partnership Councillor Boriss Councillor Philip Burke Councillor Susan Emmott Councillor Godson Councillor Holly

Community Safety – Township Tactical Group – No appointment was made to this body in 2011/2012, instead items were referred to the Police and Communities Together (PACT) meetings.

7. OTHER BODIES

7.1 The Township Committee is requested to consider appointments to the following other bodies, and the appointments made in respect of 2011/2012 are also detailed below: -

Queen Elizabeth Foundation

Councillor Williams is appointed until May 2013

Riverside Pennine Housing Association

No appointment made in respect of 2011/2012

Langley Estate Strategy Group – Councillors Philip Burke and Murphy

PACT - The appropriate Ward Councillors as required

Township Green Champion

No appointment made in respect of 2011/2012

Middleton Devolved Funding Allocation for the Over 60s

To meet on an ad-hoc basis to consider any remaining issues, involving Councillor Murphy (Lead Member) Steering Group – Councillors Fitzsimons and Robinson.

Supporting People Elected Member Consultative Group

No appointment made in respect of 2011/2012

Middleton Town Centre Consortium Company and Middleton Market Company

Councillors Godson, Murphy and Williams

Visit Rochdale Borough Group

No appointment made in respect of 2011/2012

Play Strategy Group

No appointment made in respect of 2011/2012

Version Number: 1 Page: 4 of 5

Page 16 Community Cohesion Advisory Group

No appointment made in respect of 2011/2012

Brentwood Day Centre – Management Committee

Councillor Godson

Heritage Board

Councillors Neil Emmott, Godson and West

8. ALTERNATIVES AND RISKS CONSIDERED:

8.1 No alternatives have been considered. The proper appointment of Sub-Committees is required to permit the undertaking of delegated functions in accordance with statutory and procedural requirements, and appointments to Working Groups and Other Bodies are required to enable the Township Committee to undertake and respond to the full range of issues relevant to the Township.

9. CONSULTATION UNDERTAKEN/PROPOSED: 9.1 Not applicable.

10. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

10.1 There are no financial implications to this report.

11. LEGAL IMPLICATIONS

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

12. PERSONNEL IMPLICATIONS

12.1 There are no personnel implications to this report.

13. EQUALITIES IMPACTS

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

Background Papers Document Place of Inspection Corporate Services Legal and Democratic Services a. Rochdale MBC’s Constitution Town Hall b. Minutes of Middleton Township Rochdale Committee (26th May 2011) OL16 1AB

Version Number: 1 Page: 5 of 5

Page 17 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 18 Agenda Item 10

Subject: SCHOOL GOVERNING BODY Status: For Publication VACANCIES – AUTHORITY GOVERNORS Report to : Middleton Township Committee Date: Thursday 24 th May 2012

Report of: Service Director - Support for Email: [email protected] Learning Author: Paul Hyde - Assistant Governor Tel: 925175 Support Officer Cabinet Member: Councillor D Martin - Portfolio Holder for Children, Schools & Families Comments from Section 151 Officer Statutory Officers: Monitoring Officer

Key Decision: No

Forward Plan General Exception Special Urgency

1. PURPOSE OF REPORT 1.1 This report outlines the current Authority Governor vacancies and requests that Township Committee makes the appropriate nominations for appointments.

2. RECOMMENDATIONS 2.1 That Township Committee nominates Authority Governors to serve on the School Governing Bodies with current and forthcoming vacancies (as outlined in the attached appendix).

MAIN TEXT INCLUDING ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED/ CONSULTATION CARRIED OUT

3.1 Members are asked to consider the School Governing Body vacancies highlighted within this report and in accordance with the Scheme of Delegation nominate appointees.

3.2 The ‘Scheme of Delegation to Township Committees’ section R (School Governing Body Vacancies) delegates the function of nominating appointees to School Governing Body vacancies in accordance with the agreed formula to the appropriate township committee.

3.3 The agreed formula was revised by Members following a decision of Council on 14 July 2000 which stated that ‘new reports dealing with Authority Governor vacancies will contain no reference to which political group should

Version Number: Page: 1 of 5

Page 19 make the nomination to fill the vacancy and no reference to which political group made previous nominations’. Members agreed that Governors will be chosen on the basis of the contribution, which they can bring to the school in terms of skills and experience.

3.4 The School Governance (Constitution) Regulations 2007 and 2012 have the effect of disqualifying Governors who have been removed for non- attendance from re-appointment as a Governor at the same school during the 12 months immediately following the disqualification.

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

3.6 Members are asked to consider the nominations received from schools (as listed in the Appendix) where schools have been able to offer a nomination.

3.7 Members are asked to note that the School Governance (Constitution) Regulations 2012 which come into effect from 1 st September 2012 require that: authority governors meet the eligibility criteria, if any, specified by the governing body; are nominated by the local authority and appointed by the governing body.

Alternatives considered 3.8 There are no alternative methods of filling Authority Governor Vacancies within the current Township Committees scheme of delegation and legislative provision.

4. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS 4.1 There are no financial implications for members to consider arising from this report.

5. LEGAL IMPLICATIONS 5.1 There are no legal implications for members to consider arising from this report other than the School Governance (Constitution) Regulations 2007as amended by the School Governance (Constitution) Regulations 2012 for authority governor appointments effective from 1 st September 2012 as outlined in section 3.4 and 3.7 above.

6. PERSONNEL IMPLICATIONS 6.1 There are no specific personnel implications for members to consider arising from this report.

7. CORPORATE PRIORITIES This report contributes to and supports the Local Authority’s role in school improvement through the development of effective governing bodies to promote high standards in all schools.

Version Number: Page: 2 of 5

Page 20 8. RISK ASSESSMENT IMPLICATIONS 8.1 There are no specific risk issues for members to consider arising from this report.

9. EQUALITIES IMPACTS 9.1 Workforce Equality Impacts Assessment There are no workforce equality issues arising from this report.

9.2 Equality/Community Impact Assessments There are no significant equality/community issues arising from this report. The Council however 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 .

There are no background papers

Version Number: Page: 3 of 5

Page 21 APPENDIX A

SCHOOL WARD NO. OF VACANCY WISHES TO NOMINATION AUTHORITY CAUSED BY CONTINUE FROM SCHOOL GOVERNOR AS / GENERAL VACANCIES GOVERNOR APPLICANT Alkrington Middleton 1 with effect The resignation No None Primary School South from 27 th of Mrs K Allen February 2012

Boarshaw Middleton 1 with effect The end of term Yes None Primary School North from 31 st of office of Ms M August 2012 Howarth

Bowlee Park Middleton 1 with effect The resignation No None Community West from 9 th of Mr T Linden – Primary School November this was 2011 deferred from the Township meetings held on 8/3/2012 and 12/01/2012

1 with effect The end of term Yes None – Canon from 31 st of office of Miller is currently August 2012 Canon P Miller Chair of Governors Elm Wood Middleton 1 with effect The end of term No None Primary School East from 31 st of office of Cllr L August 2012 Murphy

Version Number: Page: 4 of 5

Page 22 APPENDIX B

LIST OF INTERESTED APPLICANTS (APPLICABLE TO SCHOOL VACANICES LISTED IN REPORT)

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

None

Version Number: Page: 5 of 5

Page 23 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 24 Agenda Item 11

Subject: Middleton Traffic Initiative - 26T Status: For Publication Limitation Scheme

Report to : Middleton Township Committee Date: 24 th May 2012

Report of: Director of Highways and Email: Engineering [email protected]

Tel: 01706 924608 Cabinet Member : Portfolio Holder for Highways and Engineering

Comments from Section 151 Officer Statutory Officers: Monitoring Officer

Key Decision: Yes / No

Forward Plan General Exception Special Urgency

1. PURPOSE OF REPORT

1.1 To update Committee on the outcome of consultation relating to the Experimental 26T Restriction Order in Middleton and to seek a decision on whether or not to proceed with promotion of the Traffic Regulation Order.

2. RECOMMENDATIONS

2.1 Committee consider the contents of the report and decide which alternative to proceed with (see para 3.1 & 3.2).

2.2 The financial implications of the decision should be considered.

Version Number: Page: 1 of 11

Page 25

Reasons for recommendation

2.3 In May 2011, RMBC advertised its intention to promote a 26T Experimental traffic order in Middleton. The order was challenged in the High Court by the Road Haulage Association (RHA). The RHA considered that there had been insufficient consultation. In response Corporate Services has now written directly to all statutory consultees listed in the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 seeking their views relating to the proposed scheme.

2.4 The response received must now be considered and if needed be acted upon prior to the committee reaching its decision to proceed with the Traffic Order.

3. MAIN TEXT INCLUDING ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED/ CONSULTATION CARRIED OUT

Alternatives considered

3.1 Not to proceed with progressing the scheme and authorise the removal of the gateway signs at a cost of approximately £6000.

3.2 To continue with the scheme by carrying out an Origin and Destination survey at a cost of approximately £40 000 to create an evidence base for the justification for the introduction of the scheme.

Consultation proposed/undertaken:

3.3 A feasibility study was carried out by traffic consultants Peter Brett Associates in 2004, 26 organisations were contacted by letter. Of those that replied 5 had concerns; • Freight Transport Association • Road Haulage Association • Greater Manchester Police • Greater Manchester Fire Service • Chamber Business Connections

3.4 The Middleton Township committee was reminded of the concerns expressed during the 2004 consultation process at the meetings held on the 11 th March 2010 and the 8 th September 2011.

3.5 Further consultation letters inviting comments were distributed on the 2nd December 2011 by the Legal Services Section.

Version Number: Page: 2 of 11

Page 26 3.6 The consultation period was extended to the 31st January 2012 at the request of the Road Haulage Association with the following comments having been received;

3.7 Issues raised by Edna Gill (Road Haulage Association): Roadway House, Little Wood Drive, West 26 Industrial Estate, Cleckheaton

The Road Haulage Association (RHA) have a number of concerns and would like to submit a formal objection to the proposal. They are aware that there have been concerns expressed, over the last ten years, regarding the movement of HGVs in the Middleton area and will continue to try to help minimise any problems that arise from these movements.

The RHA have requested copies of any surveys or assessments that have been conducted recently and state if surveys have been conducted, they would be interested to know on what basis these proposals have been put together.

RHA have consulted a number of haulage companies in the Middleton Junction area and all have reported that an access restriction would bring about considerable costs to their local business both financially and environmentally. With an increase in congestion there would also be additions to fuel costs, vehicle maintenance driver time and driver wages. Two of the local companies, alone, have report an total additional 34,424 miles per annum would have to be driven by their vehicles just to gain access to Middleton town centre from the Middleton Junction area. This would result in displacing these HGV movements to other residential areas within Rochdale Borough.

The RHA state that there would also have been a significant problem for Haulage companies members whose ability to access and serve businesses in the centre of Rochdale will be impacted. It is a balance between the perceived benefit to the Town Centre to be Heavy Goods Vehicle free, and the economic impact to business dependent upon HGV’s for deliveries.

RHA are concerned that given the current economic climate and the National Planning Policy Framework, consideration should be given on the balance between economic and environmental interests and therefore would like to scrutinise both the factual assumptions and political/policy reason for making this order.

3.8 Response of the Director of Highways

The weight limit proposals for Middleton were initiated by the Middleton Traffic Initiative (MTI) prior the opening of the M60 during 2000. This was due to a perceived increase of traffic and general HGV movements diverted from the Motorway onto the local road network through Middleton.

Version Number: Page: 3 of 11

Page 27

Prior to progressing the scheme Rochdale MBC commissioned Origin and Destination traffic surveys to identify the issue of general HGV through movements in order to justify the proposals. These Origin and Destination Surveys were carried out in 1998, 2000 and 2001, by Greater Manchester Transportation Unit over a 10 hour period during the day (8am-6pm).

It is important to mention that these surveys took into consideration “all HGV’s” and not specifically those over 26Tonnes which this experimental order will be affecting. HGV’s over 26Tonnes will make up a proportion of the “all HGV’s” figure however the proportion of which was not observed at the time and is therefore unknown.

The results of the surveys indicated the numbers of all HGV vehicles “unmatched” (those that have some legitimately purpose in Middleton town centre) were considerable. The percentage of all HGV movements recorded in Middleton as being legitimately in the area were 61% in 1998 (prior to M60 opening), 73% in 2000 and 64% in 2001.

With Traffic Surveys indicating the majority of HGV traffic in Middleton being legitimately in the area servicing local business, private consultants “Peter Brett Associates” (PBA) were brought in during 2004 to investigate the benefits of the scheme.

While the Origin and Destination survey only considered daytime movements, additional general traffic counts were carried and analysed by the PBA report and concluded that overall the number of night time HGV movements in Middleton were low and are likely to be generated from by Robert McBride Ltd.

The expected benefits highlighted in the PBA report were based the Origin and Destination data from the 2000 survey, predicted a two way average daily reduction of general HGV traffic at each gateway of 22 vehicles. Again these figures are based on “general HGV movements” which includes vehicles classed as 26 Tonne and under which are not affected by the proposed Experimental order.

The benefits of a 26tonne scheme would therefore be much lower and can only be predicted by commissioning a more extensive Origin and destination survey.

Another issue is that the expected benefits were based on a number of assumptions such as the provision of advance signing that currently do not form part of the minimal scheme proposed due to budget constraints.

Version Number: Page: 4 of 11

Page 28

One of the key challenges of such a proposal is to reduce the impact of traffic whilst maintaining economic prosperity and meeting peoples needs. Where access is precluded such as on Grimshaw Lane special consideration should be made to the business adversely affected by these proposals. Since we have received legitimate concerns and are aware of issues concerning other companies, this needs to be seriously considered and mitigated before we proceed with the introduction of the scheme to avoid further legal challenge.

3.9 Issues raised by Sergeant Dean Memory, Police Greater Manchester Police (GMP)

GMP is concerned that business premises off Grimshaw Lane will not be allowed to have deliveries from a vehicles over 26 tonnes.

He feels the scheme as it stands is unworkable from an enforcement aspect due to the large area of the scheme, access to any terminal point within the “except for loading/unloading” zone will mean that a significant number of over 26 tonne vehicles will still be allowed in the area as they will be going to roads / premises within the extended restricted area and any enforcement action will necessarily be difficult in proving that the vehicle was in effect just passing through the area.

GMP states when the experimental order is not proving effective then the remedy for this should not be for enforcement activity, proper solutions to the problem need to then be sought. Accordingly Greater Manchester Police will not do any pre-planned enforcement of the scheme. This does not of course preclude an officer who observes a contravention from dealing with it.

He is also concerned about the lack of advance warning signs notifying vehicles over the 26 tonnes of the gateways. Where a vehicle over 26 tonnes may legitimately turn around or deviate from the restricted road. Due to difficulties encountered in gaining approval to site advance signs any vehicle turning left off the motorway will not be warned of the restriction and will be unable to turn around.

3.10 Response of the Director of Highways

As previously mentioned in section 3.8, there may be businesses who are situated on Grimshaw Lane who are inconvenienced by the restriction unable to have deliveries from Vehicles over 26T. One such business identified in previous Township reports would be JW Lees. The active enforcement by the Greater Manchester Police is integral to ensuring the scheme is adhered to by HGV drivers, without a robust enforcement regime in place the positive effect of the scheme on the residents of Middleton will be negligible.

Version Number: Page: 5 of 11

Page 29 It is the view of Highways and Engineering that a Traffic Order should not be promoted unless it will be complied with and fully enforced.

Due to issues with lack of clarity regarding the impact of the scheme we have been unable to acquire the necessary co-operation to site advance warning signs within Highways Agency and Manchester Councils land. The advanced signs are not mandatory and are advisory only. Whilst they are considered essential their absence does not prevent the experimental order.

3.11 The Highways Agency

The Highways agency request information on the likely amount of transfer of HGV’s onto the Strategic Road Network (SRN) would be useful to understand likely volumes so that appropriate monitoring, measures and planning can be put in place. Depending upon the volume of traffic to be identified, the need for appropriate signing on the SRN will need to be addressed to ensure that any transfer of traffic can be safely accommodated:

They are concerned that depending upon any sign locations, there may be an issue of potential u-turning traffic at M60 Junction 20 (also dependant upon the understanding of likely traffic volumes); They also state that the enforcement of such a scheme will be difficult.

3.12 Response of the Director of Highways

Origin and destination surveys looking specifically at 24hour vehicle movements will need to be carried out to provide the Highways agency with the information they require.

The location of some of the gateways may encourage irregular vehicle movements by Heavy Goods Vehicles over 26 Tonnes who have no legitimacy within the zone. Unfortunately there is not the budget available to install the necessary highway measures to ensure possible highway manoeuvres created by the location of the gateways can be carried out in a relatively safe manor.

As already mentioned in section 3.9, the Police have stated enforcement of the scheme to be unworkable.

3.13 Malcolm Bingham, Head of Policy North of England, Freight Transport Association

He believes that the scheme is ill founded and will only serve to add mileage and delays to Freight operators who have a need to carry out their legitimate deliveries. This type of scheme is also not helpful to operators who are trying to meet with their and the national needs to reduce carbon usage. The Freight Transport Association object to the proposal.

Version Number: Page: 6 of 11

Page 30

3.14 Response of the Director of Highways

The scheme may add millage to companies whose most used direct route for vehicles over 26Tonnes is via Grimshaw Lane, or companies who are situated just outside the “Loading” zone wishing to travel through the zone. It should also assist in removal of none legitimate Heavy Goods Vehicles travelling through Middleton Town Centre.

3.15 Jason Matthews, Matthews Transport (Manchester) Ltd, Greengate

Mr Matthew’s company requires direct access to Middleton via Grimshaw Lane to service his customers in Middleton town centre. He is concerned about the extra costs he will incur and environmental damage to divert around the town. The additional economic costs for access to his Vita Mill client cost for just fuel in introducing the Grimshaw Lane restriction will be £3446.32 per year and will double the mileage compare to the direct route. Access to Grimshaw Lane is essential for Matthews Transport to continue to provide cost effective road transport in Middleton.

He is also worried about the additional congestion caused by trucks from outside the area trying to avoid the weight restriction and states that any Lorries over 26 Tonne to Middleton via Greengate would meet a dead-end when they arrived at the traffic light at J W Lees brewery. With a weight restriction to their left (Grimshaw Lane) a low bridge straight ahead (Mills Hill Road) and another low bridge to their right at (Grimshaw Lane/Foxdenton Lane), they would be effectively 'trapped' with the only option being a 'U' turn in the middle of Greengate which he considers to be a dangerous manoeuvre.

3.16 Response of the Director of Highways

The proposals will restrict Mathews Transport direct access to Middleton via Grimshaw Lane. Heavy Goods Vehicles over 26Tonnes in weight and greater than 11’6”” in height travelling north along Greengate towards the junction of Grimshaw Lane will not be able to proceed any further once the proposed order is introduced. Therefore the vehicle would be required to turn around. No engineering works are proposed at the junction to accommodate Heavy Goods Vehicles turning around at Grimshaw Lane/ Green Gate junction, this could prove to be a dangerous manoervre.

Version Number: Page: 7 of 11

Page 31

3.17 Martin Hill, W. Harrison & Sons (Carriers) Ltd ● BST Carriers Ltd

The proposed restrictions will cost the company both financially and environmentally as they have a major customer situated on Townley Street and these proposals will result in additional fuel being used. They have provided financial information indicating the proposals will adversely affect their company costing the company an additional £36,269 per annum.

3.18 Response of the Director of Highways

The proposals will restrict W. Harrison & Sons (Carriers) Ltd access to Townley Street Middleton via Grimshaw Lane for HGV’s over 26T.

3.19 Dave Clough, Middleton Transport

Mr Clough states he has very recently been aware of the proposals, despite having had a transport business in the centre of Middleton for many years. As a resident and business owner in Middleton he is in favour of having a more environmentally friendly transport systems consisting of less traffic and more efficient vehicle fleets.

He feels the congestion and pollution on our roads is not caused mainly by trucks but by cars, which outnumber trucks. The cost of introducing the scheme would cause a massive drain on their profits in what are already testing times for all involved in the transport industry, not to mention the constant pressure from various Government Agencies to reduce Carbon footprints where ever possible.

This proposal sends out a very anti-business message when Middleton needs all the jobs it can get. Due to the number of low bridges and residential streets between their depot and their customers, the route taken via Grimshaw Lane is the shortest and most economical route for their vehicles to take. They have a hand full of contracts within Middleton and in particular the Vita Mill on Oldham Road. Two of their major accounts work out of the Vita Mill and as such they make regular journeys along Grimshaw Lane to collect and deliver to these customers. They also have a customer on Hilton Fold Lane (Milliken Industries Ltd) for whom they provide transport. The company also stores a large amount of the raw materials in their warehouse which they use for their production; this again incurs many daily journeys along the proposed restricted route.

Version Number: Page: 8 of 11

Page 32 He states scheme is unenforceable as Middleton Police is already overstretched and has some experience of these schemes in the south of England, although they are generally in small rural areas and not on main arterial routes. He feels the problem is that if you are not local you cannot be sure if your destination is in or out of the zone and will be committing an offence in choosing the more direct route on satellite navigation systems.

He feels for his business and other local haulers the situation is far from clear as they will be banned from using Grimshaw Lane entirely which is the shortest route for both of them to get to their respective major customers in the centre of Middleton. This means that they will have to find an alternative route. The shortest of which seems to be down Victoria Ave, and then down Manchester New Rd. This is not an appealing prospect as he fails to see why neighboring areas in Middleton should accept the excess traffic from Grimshaw lane to divert past their houses.

He believes the scheme to be costly and unnecessary and should be dropped entirely. Or alternatively make it all “except for loading” by including Grimshaw Lane in the order to avoid local haulers having to make costly detours past other residents of the boroughs houses, increasing the vehicle emissions.

3.20 Response of the Director of Highways

As mentioned in section 3.3, PBA did carry out initial consultation during 2004, whilst it was not with individual businesses it did contact the relevant representative’s organisations.

Middleton Transport being situated just outside the zone on John Lee Fold are just within a 7.5tonne except for loading zone. If Middleton Transport wishes to enter the 26Tonne zone at the junction of Hanson Street, John Lee Fold they must ensure they load or unload within the 26 Tonne zone otherwise they will be acting illegally. By amending the scheme and including Grimshaw Lane in the “Except for Loading” zone will require further approvals from Department for Transport. It would also lessen the impact of the scheme at reducing the volumes of HGV’s through Middleton and by increasing the Except for Loading zone would make the scheme even more difficult to enforce.

It would be difficult to identify the benefits of an amended scheme to local residents or businesses without first carrying out new extensive Origin and Destination surveys to identify specifically a 26 tonne HGV issue in Middleton. This evidence base will ensure a mandate to initiate further works to proceed with the scheme along with amendments to the Grimshaw Lane part proposals by possibly removing the total ban.

Version Number: Page: 9 of 11

Page 33

4. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

4.1 There is currently £10,000 Budget remaining for the scheme consisting of £6,000 Township allocation and £4,000 Highway funding.

4.2 To remove the scheme, there would be still an associated cost to the removal of the gateway signs of approximately £6,000.

4.3 The cost of carryout an Origin and Destination survey prior to progressing the scheme that will assess the extent of vehicles over 26T in and out of the zone for 24hours a day for a period of 7 days will be in the region of £40,000.

4.4 The Legal and Highway costs for implementing the Experimental Order has been estimated at £4000.

4.5 A further £34,000 is therefore required to carry out the Origin and Destination survey and should the Origin and destination provide the necessary justification, introduce the Experimental scheme.

4.6 If the Experimental scheme is made permanent there would be further costs associated with lighting the signs and possible advance signing.

5. LEGAL IMPLICATIONS

5.1 See para 7.1.

6. PERSONNEL IMPLICATIONS

6.1 None.

7. RISK ASSESSMENT IMPLICATIONS

7.1 The issues outlined below present the potential risks to the implementation of the scheme in its current format :

• The risk of a legal challenge resulting in the Order not being permitted and over £5000 costs paid out is extremely high.

Version Number: Page: 10 of 11

Page 34 • One of the main reasons for the risk of a legal challenge is that there is currently a lack of justification for the introduction of the experimental order and it is therefore difficult to assess benefits of the scheme. This presents difficulties when dealing with concerns regarding increase economic burden on local businesses affected by the proposals.

• The effects of the introduction of the scheme on neighbouring Highway network are unknown which results in the lack of approval to permit introducing the advance direction signs; Manchester City Council (MCC) and The Highways Agency (HA) refusing to allow advance direction signs. These issues remain subject to further information being identified / provided on the effect of introducing a 26T experimental order.

• Only Township has the authority to suspend or modify an experimental order under the Council’s Scheme of Delegation. This could effect the ability to quickly modify if required an element of the scheme which is adversely affecting local residents or businesses.

• Any amendments to the Experimental scheme involving relocation of the gateway locations or advance warning sign using the 26T symbol for Environmental reasons will require Department for Transport approval, this will result in considerable delay to the scheme.

• The adverse effect of the proposals on businesses in the Grimshaw Lane area who are not members of the Road Haulage Association or Freight Transport Association and may not be aware of the proposals and the restriction on over 26T accessing their premises.

• Even if it is introduced the scheme will not be the subject of any targeted enforcement by Greater Manchester Police.

8. EQUALITIES IMPACTS

8.1 Workforce Equality Impacts Assessment

There are no (significant) workforce equality issues arising form this report.

8.2 Equality/Community Impact Assessments

Community impact highlighted in section 7.1.

Version Number: Page: 11 of 11

Page 35 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 36 Agenda Item 12

Subject: Middleton Parish C of E Primary Status: For Publication Objections to the Proposed 20mph School Zone & Associated Traffic Calming

Report to: Middleton Township Date: 24 th May 2012

Report of: Anne Winn Email: [email protected] Highways & Engineering Service Tel: (01706) 924612 Cabinet Member: Councillor J Beswick Portfolio Holder for Performance & Partnerships Comments from Section 151 Officer Statutory Officers: Monitoring Officer

Key Decision: Yes / No

Forward Plan General Exception Special Urgency

1. PURPOSE OF REPORT

1.1 This report is to advise Members of Objections received in response to the published proposals to introduce a 20mph Speed Zone with Traffic Calming around Middleton Parish Primary School, Middleton and to present the response of the Director of Highways & Engineering Service to the objections received and to ask Members to decide which of the proposals should be implemented.

2. RECOMMENDATIONS

2.1 The Committee reads the report and decides that the School Keep Clear markings are implemented as advertised and that one of the following recommendations is also approved:-

2.1.1 Implementation of the 20mph Zone as advertised - Traffic Regulation Order, Borough of Rochdale (Middleton Parish) (20mph Speed Limit)Order and the Borough of Rochdale, Middleton Parish, Middleton, Proposed Construction of Road Humps. (See Plan 1)

Version Number: Page: 1 of 6

Page 37 2.1.2 Implementation of the 20mph Zone as advertised with the exception of the proposed road hump on Parsons Drive and the one north of Towncroft Avenue.

2.1.3 Implementation of the 20mph speed limit without the introduction of traffic calming features.

If Committee feels that it wishes to proceed with a 20mph speed limit without the introduction of traffic calming features, speed surveys will be required to determine current vehicle speeds which will then be presented to Greater Manchester Police in line with the requirements of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984.

Further consultation will also be required with local residents on the amended proposals.

MAIN TEXT INCLUDING ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED/ CONSULTATION CARRIED OUT

3.1 A decision was made at the meeting of the Council on the 14 th October 2009 to ‘introduce as a priority, a mandatory and enforceable 20 miles an hour speed limit on all roads outside schools in the borough’.

At the Cabinet meeting on the 21 st March 2011 approval was given to the funding arrangement to deliver the above works.

Out of the total eighty one schools within Rochdale there were currently thirty six within 20mph zones, with a further two in the process of being constructed this year. The remaining 43 schools are located within either residential areas or fronting classified roads.

3.2 To meet the decision made by the Council & Cabinet it is proposed to introduce a mandatory 20mph Zone on various streets surrounding Middleton Parish C of E Primary. This will be enforced by the introduction of traffic calming in the form of round top speed humps.

3.3 Department for Transport (DfT) guidelines requires that a speed reducing feature, such as a road hump, should be located within 40 metres of the start of a 20mph zone and at a maximum 100m apart to make the zone self-enforcing.

3.4 From the outcome of the legal consultation and the leaflets delivered to all household (238 leaflets), 14 (6%) sent responses by email or letter with their comments / objections.

A petition with 71 signatures from 50 households was also presented. Of these, 50 signatures (30 households) live within the leafleted area and the majority of these, 28 households, live on Parsons Drive.

3.5 10 of the responders are in agreement with the 20mph Zone with Road Humps but would like the humps Parsons Road and the one north of

Version Number: Page: 2 of 6

Page 38 Towncroft Avenue to be omitted. They also asked if Mellalieu Street could be included into scheme.

3.6 14% of the objectors want the 20mph speed limit but without the Road Humps but due to the lengths of roads it is felt that the DfT guidelines should be adhered to to ensure that the 20mph speed limit is self- enforcing. Greater Manchester Police will not support 20mph zones without traffic calming features.

Alternatives considered

Consultation proposed/undertaken

3.7 In accordance with statutory procedures, Notice of the proposals was advertised in the Middleton Guardian on 9th February 2012. Notices were also served on statutory consultees and posted on site on 9th February 2012 on the roads affected by the proposals and copies of the relevant documents were made available in Council Offices.

3.8 Every household within the affected area was also leafleted - (238 leaflets).

OBJECTIONS RECEIVED AND RELATED RESPONSES OF THE DIRECTOR OF HIGHWAYS (see plan 2 for locations of objectors)

Written objections received from :

Mrs A J Lewis – 17 Springfield Road G Tinker & V Poole – 83 Springfield Road C Bardsley – Parsons Drive J Gillibrand J Martin – Springfield Road D Whittle – Cleworth Road Mrs J Poole J Bottomley – Springfield Road Mrs M P Winters – 19 Springfield Road Mr J Fox – 52 Parsons Drive Mr J North – 1 Springfield Road Mr P Dawson – 80 Springfield Road R Hay Mr B Weaver – 15 Parsons Drive

Petition with 71 signatures (50 of which lived within leafleted area)

Issues raised

Objection Objector No objection to Springfield Road (outside the G Tinker & V Poole School) having road humps but the rest of the C Bardsley roads – part of Towncroft Ave, Parsons Drive, P Dawson top part of Springfield Rd are all dead ends Mr B Weaver and only local residents use the roads so road

Version Number: Page: 3 of 6

Page 39 humps are not necessary. Cleworth Road has a natural chicane.

Response The introduction of any 20mph zone would require the installation of traffic calming features to make the speed limit self enforcing to meet current Department for Transport guidelines.

Objection Objector No objection to 20mph speed limit but sees no Mrs M P Winters point in having any road humps A J Lewis Petition

Response The introduction of any 20mph zone would require the installation of traffic calming features to make the speed limit self enforcing to meet current Department for Transport guidelines.

Objection Objector No objections to the 20mph speed limit with G Martin humps in the area but wonders why Mellaleiu G Tinker & V Poole Street has been left out as this is by far the D Whittle worst road for speeding Mrs J Poole Janine Bottomley Mr J Fox Rita Hay J Gillibrand

Response Highways & Engineering’s remit was to introduce 20mph speed limits outside schools in the Borough. It has had to produce the most cost effective schemes that would also address any current accident problems. The police accident database revealed that there had been 2 child pedestrian accidents, 1 on Cleworth Road and 1 on Springfield Road (this was recorded as a child travelling to school). There were no recorded accidents on Mellalieu Street. Funds and works had to be targeted where accidents were occurring. As with any scheme the accident records will be monitored with a view to possibly extending the scheme if future funds can be found.

Objection Objector Objects to the road hump on Parsons Drive as Mr B Weaver the road is not a through road. The road also Petition (inc. 28 households on has a steep incline and during winter is not Parsons Drive) gritted therefore this will cause additional problems

Response As this cul de sac is a greater than the 100m as recommended by DfT it was felt a Road Hump was required. Due to the strength of feeling from this road consideration could be given to omitting this particular Road Hump.

Objection Objector Agree with the proposals (20mph & humps) James North

Version Number: Page: 4 of 6

Page 40 but wonders if the grass verge on Springfield Road could be changed to a parking area as when playing fields are in use this area becomes a parking area.

Response The funds allocated for this scheme was to provide for a 20mph School Zones and not for parking facilities for parents etc. Any additional works of this nature would have to be applied for from Township funds.

Objection Objector Why are there no road humps on the top J Gillibrand section of Towncroft Avenue as this is worse for speeding than other roads in the area

Response As this cul de sac is within DfT guidelines it was felt a Road Hump would not be needed on this part of Towncroft Avenue.

Objection Objector There would be an increase in noise and Mr P Dawson vibration due to the road humps

Response Research has shown that providing the humps conform to the Highways (Road Hump) regulations this should not be a problem.

Objection Objector The humps will cause damage to vehicles C Bardsley Mrs J Poole

Response Research has shown that providing the humps conform to the Highways (Road Hump) regulations this should not be a problem.

4. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

None

5. LEGAL IMPLICATIONS

None

6. PERSONNEL IMPLICATIONS

None

Version Number: Page: 5 of 6

Page 41

7. RISK ASSESSMENT IMPLICATIONS

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

8. EQUALITIES IMPACTS

8.1 Workforce Equality Impacts Assessment

There are no workforce equality issues arising form this report.

8.2 Equality/Community Impact Assessments

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

There are no background papers

Version Number: Page: 6 of 6

Page 42 Page 43 Page 44 Page 45 Page 46 Agenda Item 13

Subject: Status: For Publication Highways Capital Programme 2012/13

Report to : Date: Heywood Township Monday 21 st May Pennine Township Tuesday 22 nd May Rochdale Township Wednesday 23 rd May Middleton Township Thursday 24 th May

Cabinet Tuesday 29 th May Report of: Helen Smith Email: Head of Property and Highways [email protected] Author: Lisa Houghton Network Improvement Team Leader (Impact Partnership) Tel: 01706 924 609 Cabinet Member : Councillor Beswick - Portfolio Holder for Highways

Comments from Section 151 Officer x Statutory Officers: Monitoring Officer x

Key Decision: Yes / No

Forward Plan x General Exception Special Urgency

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 The purpose of this report is to inform Cabinet of the Local Transport Plan Funding available for 2012/2013. Also to advise of our prior commitments within the highways capital programme from the previous year, and of the existing work commitment required to achieve an improved transport network.

2. Recommendation

2.1 The Cabinet notes the funding (2,379,923) which has been allocated for 2012/13 for the Highways Capital Programme schemes through the Local Transport Plan process.

2.2 The Cabinet notes and supports the committed schemes already included in the programme from previous years as indicated in Appendix A.

Version Number: 16/05/2012 Page: 1 of 21

Page 47 2.3 The Cabinet notes and supports that there will be no Highways Capital funding available to be devolved to Townships due to the requirements of TAMP delivery and the removal of ITB funding.

2.4 To provide enhanced delivery across the Highways Capital Programme an improved timetable for reporting progress on spend and new funding is proposed, where Townships can also formally discuss, advise and confirm priorities for the current and future financial year:

July 2012 All Township Committe e’s – report on the Cabinet 2012/13 respective townships budget approvals including: • carry forward schemes and funding from previous year • further funding required to complete existing schemes • new schemes to be considered for funding

November 2012 All Township Committee’s - Progress on the current financial year 2012/13 programme for the respective townships, including an indicative forecast spend to the end of the financial year, and consultation on township priorities for 2012/13

February 201 3 Budget Fixing Council – confirmed income and forecast spend for following financial year

June 2013 Cabinet – Report on the Budget Fixing Council formal approvals of the actual income for the new financial year, 2013/14, and of the GM LTP funding allocations and of any specific DfT grants secured.

2.5 Note that it was agreed at AGMA Executive Board on the 28 th January 2011 that there will be no (DfT ITB) funding available for distribution to districts for minor works. Therefore the funding previously reported in Rochdale as Transport Policy and Local Safety Scheme allocations, will not be received in 2011/12, 2012/13 and remains currently unlikely to be allocated 2013/14.

2.6 Where events external to the Council require a rapid response or agreement in principle the Committee authorise the Highway Policy and Strategy Manager Tim Wood, to vary the programme in consultation with the Lead Member and the Chair of the relevant Township Committee.

Version Number: 16/05/2012 Page: 2 of 21

Page 48 2.7 Where land acquisition issues relating to the Highways Capital Programme are identified or emerge during the year the Committee authorise the Highway Policy and Strategy Manager Tim Wood, to make the necessary arrangements in consultation with the Lead Member and Chair of the relevant Township.

3. Reasons For Recommendation

3.1 The recommendations devolve the approval of any new schemes to be included in the Highways Capital Programme, or variations to the programme, to the Township Committees. This is in line with the devolution of the service to the Townships.

3.2 There are changes to allocations and work programme that are subject to Government funding and approvals. These schemes require further work before permissions and funding is granted.

3.3 The Highways Capital Programme recognise the status of the protocols for transport in Greater Manchester being within the responsibility of the Combined Authority (CA) and the enhanced roles of Transport for Greater Manchester, and as in previous years will support the objectives of AGMA and scheme delivery to support the GMLTP.

4. Background

4.1 To achieve delivery of the locally and regionally agreed GMLTP targets, the CA is awarded Highways Capital programme funding by the DfT and agrees and distributes allocations to the Councils of Greater Manchester. Progress on achieving targets within the shared priorities is recognised and levels of funding adjusted accordingly.

4.2 The third GMLTP has been prepared jointly with the Greater Manchester Integrated Transport Authority/Executive (ITA/E) and the 10 Greater Manchester District Councils in accordance with guidelines issued by the DfT. The need to work together in Greater Manchester as 10 authorities is a statutory requirement and the Council cannot therefore leave the partnership. The LTP also reflects the GM approach to responding to national objectives including economic management, performance of the network and sustainability.

4.3 A district annexe to GMLTP3, the Local Area Implementation Plan (LAIP) for the Borough of Rochdale identifies our approach and outlines an indicative programme of works for 2011/12 – 2014/15 to support delivery of the objectives of GMLTP3, the Rochdale Transport Strategy and the Rochdale Core Strategy.

4.4 The 2012/13 programme aims to continue the aspirations of the previous LTP2 Rochdale Capital programmes and be more effective in

Version Number: 16/05/2012 Page: 3 of 21

Page 49 identifying and responding to the LTP shared priorities of Safety, Air Quality, Congestion and Accessibility. The LTP programme and processes also aim to encourage an ongoing incentive to increase access to sustainable travel and therefore improve modal shift, and also support economic growth.

4.5 Within the GMLTP Capital Programme allocation for the period 2012/13, the DfT allocation for Rochdale is £2,379,923. The allocations have been broken down into the following values against a work category/measurement as used for formulaic distribution in previous GMLTP.

Table 4.5.1 – DfT LTP Capital Allocations

Rochdale 2012/13 Highways Structural Maintenance (HSM) 1, 307,650 Bridge Maintenance 889,202 Street Lighting 183,071 Total 2,379,923

4.6 Dissimilar to the previous GMLTP1 and GMLTP2 capital allocations and respective district funding distributions, for GMLTP3 there is no ITB allocation in 2012/13 and this is not expected to be available for districts until 2014/15, as agreed by AGMA. Therefore no new LTP Capital funding allocations for Transport Policy and Local Safety Schemes are identified or available for devolution to Township.

4.7 Furthermore following extensive high level discussions with Township Members and the Highways portfolio holder, the capital programme will now respond to a “needs approach” for Highways Structural Maintenance. This member led preference for identifying and delivering a priority programme of improvement works for Highways Maintenance, with HSM funding proportionately allocated across Rochdale, Middleton, Heywood and Pennines, and is outlined at Appendix B. Further discussions on the proposed schemes will continue via the respective Townships.

4.8 The funding identified from the HSM 2011/12 allocation, but is not shown allocated against specific roads will be utilised and distributed respectively across the townships for essential maintenance “patching works”; this element of work could not be fully assessed or be deliverable within 2011/12 but is a recognised priority and will be progressed early in 2012/13.

4.9 The 2012/13 Highways Capital Programme continues to support delivery of the Rochdale Transport Strategy and its key actions plan proposals. The current priority actions are outlined below with progress of the respective objectives of these schemes supported by the GMLTP3 and the Local Area Implementation Plan objectives.

Version Number: 16/05/2012 Page: 4 of 21

Page 50 Table 4.9.1 – DfT Rochdale Transport Strategy action plan proposals

a) Rochdale Station Improvements including Park and Ride ; Create improved transport interchange facilities b) Kingsway Metrolink Stop ; provide a key public transport facility for the Kingsway Business Park (KBP) site c) Metrolink Phase 3b Roc hdale Station / Town Centre; provide a direct public transport route across the GM City Region to Rochdale d) Rochdale Public Transport Interchange ; implement enhanced public transport interchange facilities e) Heywood Town Centre Interchange and bus route improvements ; enable improved interchange and access to the town centre f) Yellow School Buses ; create increased access and fleet capacity across the Borough g) Walking and Cycling Access to Metrolink and Rail Stops ; create sustainable safer a ccess to Metrolink and rail. h) Develop Borough Walking and Cycling Strategies ; develop localised strategies to support GM and identify the Rochdale vision and objectives I) Milnrow Network Improvements (M62 J21) ; create improved movement of vehicles through the area j) Develop Heywood Freight Quality Partnership ; create a template for improved network and business performance k) Rochdale Town Centre Transport Modelling ; identify improved access requirements for business, leisure and retail activ ity l) Rochdale Borough Parking Strategy ; identify objectives and actions for improving parking provision and access to respective key facilities

4.10 Implementation of Metrolink 3a has been progressing in partnership with the GMPTE and the approved contractor Mpact Thales. Currently work is progressing to continue the provision of Metrolink 3b into the Town Centre. Completion and operation of Metrolink is programmed 2014; this long term project implementation began on site in 2010/11 and works will continue through the 2013/14 highways programme.

4.11 The Rochdale interchange preparatory site works commenced 2008/09 and the planning application submitted 2009/10 with, DfT funding approvals and required land acquisition, demolitions and site works agreed 2011/12 and progressing with completion of the full interchange scheme 2013/14.

4.12 Township planning and regeneration issues are also addressed in the programme and again it is necessary to ensure budgets are used to meet agreed targets and maximise any opportunities for additional funding from other sources. Further details will be provided in future reports.

4.13 Priority Investment Funded projects, many with transportation enhancements and improvements, are also providing an essential uplift across the Highways Programmes, supporting delivery of GMLTP and our local transport objectives

Version Number: 16/05/2012 Page: 5 of 21

Page 51 4.14 Funding within the 2012/13 Capital Programme is heavily weighted towards schemes with both political and financial commitment. This programme includes schemes supported by GMTF, DfT and LTP capital and those schemes sponsored through previous years LTP devolution and respective schemes approved by Townships.

5. Transport Policy and Local Safety Schemes

5.1 With no ITB funding allocated to Rochdale, it is doubtful that the aspirations of the DfT, TfGM and Rochdale to reduce accident numbers by 40% by 2020 will be achieved. The LTP Road Traffic Casualty reduction targets will be considered through efficiently assessing other funding and areas of work across the network, and working closely with TFGM and neighbouring districts. Locally, and as per the 2011/12 distribution, we are directing capital funds for 2012/13 resulting form the commencement of the Street Lighting PFI (See para 8.3) to support core activity and existing commitments.

5.2 Furthermore the recently created Combined Authority and TFGM will provide enhanced opportunities to improve cross boundary working and improving network efficiencies. We will continue to work closely with our neighbouring districts and TFGM.

5.3 To increase funding available we will continue to identify opportunities for partnership with neighbouring districts, private developers, and TFGM. This is considered where complementary aims for reducing the negative impacts of travel, particularly when schemes provide opportunities to encourage the use of sustainable modes of travel such as walking, cycling and public transport. It is essential that schemes utilising LTP funding provide outputs to support the LTP objectives and are strategically important to the network.

5.4 DfT’s Congestion Performance Fund is no longer available. However in May 2009 Rochdale was allocated £40,000 match funding to introduce highway improvements on Halifax Road. This scheme is included within the committed carry forward from 2011/12.

5.5 Prudential Borrowing to the value of £1,033,000 was secured in 2011/12 for the provision of measures locally to create School Zones, to provide safer access to schools and sustain travel plan objectives; contributing to reduced accident rates and car use. This funding and schemes developed aim to support the ongoing commitment to improve quality of life and safer access to walking and cycling. This work is ongoing in consultation with Townships

5.6 The development of the Rochdale Metrolink phase 3a is progressing and will bring the track into Rochdale via Rochdale Station and on Maclure Road. Partnership working with Pennine Township, KBP, Wilson Bowden David Wilson Homes, TFGM and the RMBC Highways

Version Number: 16/05/2012 Page: 6 of 21

Page 52 Capital Programme will deliver the essential Metrolink stop at KBP. Supporting highway schemes and a Rochdale Town centre Transport Modelling exercise (see 4.10 project ‘k’) are being developed to mitigate the anticipated changes in travel.

5.7 The required increase in access for all stops must be addressed and therefore a range of park and ride, walking and cycling access interventions have been assessed and will be considered for future funding programmes (see 4.10 project ‘g’), and these are currently considered in the GM Local Sustainable Transport Fund (LSTF) Main Bid proposals; this accessibility work is not covered by the TFGM budget for construction of Metrolink, and therefore additional funding must be identified and secured, with LSTF decisions expected June 2012.

5.8 Whilst preparatory works have begun for the new location of the Rochdale Bus interchange, the major construction works proposed to coincide with the Rochdale Town Centre Redevelopment will similarly require additional funding and LTP support. New and improved access routes and facilities will determine the levels of improved accessibility achieved. This will cross over with improvements for Rochdale Town Centre and Metrolink 3a and 3b. Furthermore the GM LSTF Key Component aims to provide a new Cycle Hub (secure cycle parking) facility on Maclure Road, and discussions are ongoing to create a similar facility as part of the Bus Interchange and Metrolink facilitates evolving in Rochdale Town Centre.

6. Bridges and Highway Structures

6.1 An allocation of £1m in 09/10 and 10/11 respectively was granted by DfT for Clover Hall Bridge with any additional funding to be covered by the LTP allocations. DfT reduced the grant allocation in 10/11 to £800,000, and a shortfall on funding of £250,000 required from the 11/12 LTP allocation. The scheme is complete and final payments to the Utility Companies are scheduled from existing budgets within the 2012/13 allocations.

6.2 A joint bid with 3 other authorities (Oldham, Tameside and Stockport) for additional funding for retaining wall work was approved by DfT July 2009. This secured an additional £7.6m over 3 years. Works began in 2009/10 and the DfT final year (2011/12) allocation of £1,954,545 was used to complete the 17 schemes in the programme.

6.3 A further 3 walls were replaced as part of this programme and any remaining costs to complete will be included as part of existing budgets.

6.4 The LTP maintenance allocation for Bridges and Structures will ensure the Boroughs network of structures is effectively managed, maintained and strengthened in accordance with the National Code of Practise for Bridge Maintenance.

Version Number: 16/05/2012 Page: 7 of 21

Page 53

7. Proposed Highway Maintenance Programme 2012/2013

7.1 The Transport Asset Management Plan (TAMP) is the basis to assess the future funding requirements for the network. In this years programme finance is committed to complement the larger schemes to support economic regeneration opportunities and the delivery of Metrolink, as well as dealing with poor structural condition identified on the network through assessment processes.

7.2 Work programmes have been developed using survey data gathered for the TAMP and from recent interrogation of the network standards and priority of works required; the process includes looking at treatment options based on a number of other factors i.e. accident data and third party claims and other work programmes.

7.3 In line with LTP objectives the programmes will focus on securing as many positive outcomes as possible on the classified network; the proposed work in each of the Township areas will be reported in subsequent reports for consideration by Townships.

8. Street Lighting

8.1 The Street Lighting PFI contract was signed April 2011, with the appointment of Community Lighting Partnership (Rochdale) Limited which comprises of Pell Frischmann Consultants and Trillium Holdings with Eon UK PLC acting as Sub-Contractor to deliver the service. The Contract is commenced on 4 th July 2011.

8.2 This started a 5 year core investment programme to deliver an improved level of service provision. The PFI will mean a radical change in the progress towards putting the lighting infrastructure into a safer condition that meets current standards.

8.3 As a result, no LTP/DfT maintenance allocations are required to support street lighting. This value will be directed towards strategic priorities, as delivered through Transport Policy programmes (see para 5.1)

9. Alternatives considered:

9.1 The issues relating to the development of the programme are contained within the background to the report

10. Consultation undertaken/proposed:

10.1 Extensive consultation has taken place throughout Greater Manchester to develop the Local Transport Plan. Significant public

Version Number: 16/05/2012 Page: 8 of 21

Page 54 and media awareness towards potential schemes has been developed and progressed at local level.

10.2 The schemes within the programme have in many cases already been through local public consultation.

10.3 All new schemes proposed will be consulted on as appropriate with Townships, Ward Councillors, residents, and other stakeholders.

10.4 The report has been prepared in consultation with the Head of Finance, Head of Legal and the Lead Member for Highways.

11. Financial Implications

11.1 Appendix A provides details of the schemes where £2,254,189 capital funding is committed from the 2011/12 allocation, and £2,379,923 capital funding from the 2012/13 allocation is required for completing the existing commitments. The following table summarises the details of Appendix A and the key work areas, funding available, and the commitments in this years LTP programme.

Table 11.1.1 – LTP Capital Summary

Committed carry Required to 2012/13 forward from 2011/12 Complete 2012/13 Allocation Highways Structural Maintenance 765,897 2,073,547 1,307,650 Local Safety Schemes 104,359 104,359 Bridges and Structures 336,545 1,225,747 889,202 Specific Allocation Retaining Walls 231,015 231,015 Transport Policy 723,882 906,953 183,071 TOTAL 2,161,698 4,541,621 2,379,923

Specific Allocation Clover Hall Bridge (*82,971) * the retaining wall specific grant match funding and Clover Hall completion costs of £82,971 within 1,225,747

11.2 Proportionate levels of LTP Capital were devolved in 2007/08, 2008/09, 2009/10 and 20010/11 to each respective Township to commission localised investigations, and delivery of some highway improvement measures. Some of the schemes identified and funded in previous years devolutions are progressing and covered within the committed carry forward from 2011/12 and detailed in appendix A.

Version Number: 16/05/2012 Page: 9 of 21

Page 55 11.3 As in previous years existing and committed schemes requiring further funding, and new highway improvement schemes identified, will be presented to the relevant Township, were funding allocations may be requested and considered.

11.4 With no ITB funding allocations for Transport Policy and Local Safety Schemes, and requirements for responding to the maintenance priorities of the Rochdale TAMP, no Highways capital funding is available to be devolved to townships. Priority schemes resulting from TAMP and recent investigations are outlined in appendix B, and these works have been apportioned across all townships.

12. Legal Implications

12.1 There are no Legal Implications resulting from the proposed Highways Capital Budget.

13. Personnel Implications

13.1 There is no Personnel Implications resulting form the proposed Highways Capital Budget.

14. Risk Assessment Implications 14.1 There are no specific risk issues for members to consider arising from this report.

15. Equalities Impacts

15.1 Workforce Equality Impacts Assessment

There are no (significant) workforce equality issues arising form this report.

15.2 Equality/Community Impact Assessments

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

There are no background papers

Version Number: 16/05/2012 Page: 10 of 21

Page 56

Page 57

Version Number: 16/05/2012 Page: 11 of 21

Appendix A - Existing schemes carried forward for 2011/12 to 2012/13

(* further funding is either • subject to query on spend to date • will be provided though the TPS allocation for strategic schemes or LSS • requested via townships for local priority schemes ) Further Funding C/O 2011-12 Township Scheme 2012/13 Middleton Rochdale Road / Mainway 450* Middleton Keswick Street Local Safety scheme 3,841* Middleton Oldham Road Route Treatment 13,488* Pennine Buckley Lane Route Treatment 46,599 Rochdale Whitworth Road Route Treatment 3,661 Rochdale Tweedale Street Route Treatment 73,345 Page 58 Rochdale Bolton Road / Mathew Moss Lane 5,892 Rochdale Road – Pedestrian Refuge 1,327* Total 129,497 18,806*

HSM (* see para 4.9 **see appendix B for details) Further Funding C/O 2011-12 Township Scheme 2012/13 Boroughwide Delivery of TAMP / Asset Management 765,897 1,307,650** Totals 765,897 1,307,650**

Bridges & Structures (*Specific allocation ** additional funding accommodated from the 20 12/13 maintenance block allocation for Bridges Further Funding C/O 2011-12 Township Scheme 2012/13 Boroughwide Retaining Wall Programme* 231,015* 82,971** Total 231,015 82,971**

Version Number: 16/05/2012 Page: 12 of 21

(** additional funding accommodated from the 2012/13 programme *** existing commitment included in the overall Bridges & Structures 2011/12 allocation) Further Funding C/O 2011-12 Township Scheme 2012/13 Boroughwide Code of Practice 31,133 Heywood Queens Park Bridge 23,820 Middleton Hollins Lane Retaining Wall 98,818 Middleton Boarshaw Road Bridge 150,000 Pennine Lawflat Bridge 4,017 Pennine Blackstone Edge 102,225*** Pennine Ogden Lane Retaining Wall 200,000 Pennine Haugh Lane Culvert 71,000 Rochdale Moss Road Bridge 121,834*** Rochdale Clover Hall Bridge 82,971 Rochdale Elizabethan Way Bridge Painting 101,155*** Page 59 Bridge and structure (code of practice, assessments and improvement 775,202** Boroughwide programme) Boroughwide Principal Bridge Inspections 30,000** Total 324,545 Totals ** 889.202 Totals *** 325,214

*final design tbc therefore ** Allocation from the maintenance budget for street lighting *** query from 2011/12 TPS allocation/spend – Additional funding will be allocated from existing and via Sustainable Travel and LTP *Further C/O 2011-12 Township Scheme Funding 2012/13 Heywood Manchester Road / Coronation Avenue – SRN improvements 56,405 Heywood Pilsworth Area HGV measures 115,662 TBC* Boroughwide Sustainable Travel 478,547 7,513*** Boroughwide LTP – GM development, policy / strategy and partnership funding applications 183,071** Middleton Market Street / Townley Street Resurfacing 1,000

Version Number: 16/05/2012 Page: 13 of 21

TPS *Further C/O 2011-12 Township Scheme Funding 2012/13 Milnrow / Newhey Traffic Study Lakebank, reline Smith Bridge Road roundabout – Holingworth Lake Residents Parking – Dale Street, Milnrow Pennine (Milnrow/Newhey Congestion Management) 8,331 Pennine Metrolink – KBP stop (combined funding with Township and RMBC) 3,179 Rochdale Edenfield Road – Zebra to Puffin 8,607 Township devolved to a range of schemes – Featherstall Road/Elizabethan Pennine Way/Buckley Lane/Calderbrook Road/Rochdale Road/Disabled Parking Bays 36,533 Rochdale Oldham Road / Kingsway 10,571*** Totals 708,264 201,155 Page 60

Version Number: 16/05/2012 Page: 14 of 21

Appendix B – Priority Highway Maintenance schemes

Rochdale Allocation Carriageway Carriageway 67% Classified £616,000 Roads Priority Estimate Ward 33% Unclassified Roads Estimate Priority Ward Total £353,701.04 £174,210.96 £527,912.00 Oldham Road 1 22,848.67 Kings Arnside Drive 8,100.89 1 Bamf Tweedale Street(a) 1 60,671.72 Milk/Deep Ruskin Road 11,329.92 1 Bd&KH Roch Valley Way 1 32,328.04 Bamf Curzon Close 3,682.22 1 Bd&KH Ashworth Rd (a) 1 43,119.79 Norden Kildare Crescent 29,637.18 1 Bd&KH Milkstone Rd (b) 1 133,239.86 Milk/Deep Bertha Road 14,266.26 1 Kings Margaret Avenue 8,875.10 1 Kings Rosefield Crescent 16,428.38 1 Kings Page 61 Stonehill Road 15,956.30 1 Spot/F Silk Street 69,509.06 1 Castleton Birtle Road 14,162.40 1 Norden

292208.08 191,947.73 £484,155.81

Footway Footway Classified F/w Priority Estimate Ward 100% UnClassified F/w Estimate Priority Ward Total £0.00 £88,088.00 £88,088.00 Selby Street 1,487.05 1 Central Copenhagen Street(even No.s) 594.82 1 Central Hector Avenue 1,057.46 1 Central Denmark Street 1,420.96 1 Central Briton Street 826.14 1 Central Ramsay Street 7,336.12 1 Central Cronkeyshaw Road 627.87 1 Central

Version Number: 16/05/2012 Page: 15 of 21

Scarr Drive 5,551.66 1 Healey Glen Gardens 2,577.56 1 Healey Chancel Place 1,487.05 1 Milk/Deep Oak Street 1,057.46 1 Milk/Deep Hereford Street 2,808.88 1 Milk/Deep Aubrey Street 16,994.88 1 Milk/Deep r Barclyde Street 8,497.44 1 Milk/Deep Moore Street (odd No.s) 1,189.64 1 Milk/Deep St Chads Close 1,288.78 1 Milk/Deep Wykeham Grove 1,255.73 1 Spot/F Whalley Road 2,247.10 1 Spot/F Winifred Street 2,511.47 1 Spot/F Baildon Road 2,775.83 1 Spot/F Ullswater Avenue 2,280.15 1 Spot/F Page 62 Phylis Street 3,271.51 1 Spot/F Schemes to be identified 11,329.92 1 Var £80,475.48 £80,475.48

Total £564,631.28

Version Number: 16/05/2012 Page: 16 of 21

Heywood

Allocation Carriageway £196,000 100% Unclassified Roads Estimate Priority Ward Total £167,972.00 £167,972.00 Mount Street £11,962.49 1 North Heywood Bury Old Road £22,612.60 1 West Heywood Starkey Street £15,833.54 1 North Heywood Queen Street £20,299.41 1 North Heywood Argyle Street £40,004.00 1 West Heywood John Street £10,385.74 1 North Heywood Sycamore Avenue £9,186.66 1 Hopwood Hall Wham Street £7,713.77 2 West Heywood

£137,998.21 £137,998.21 Page 63 Footway 100% UnClassified F/w Estimate Priority Ward Total £28,028.00 £49,840.00 Coomasie Street (even No side) £2,974.10 1 North Heywood Sutherland Road (even No side) £4,626.38 1 West Heywood Lochinver Grove £2,841.92 1 West Heywood Lorne Way £925.28 1 West Heywood Clarke Street £1,255.73 1 North Heywood r Bury & Rochdale Old Road £16,050.69 1 North Heywood Wilton Grove No 22 to 56 £13,690.30 1 Hopwood Hall Wolsey Street No 1 to 15 £5,192.87 1 Hopwood Hall

£47,557.26 £47,557.26

Total £185,555.47

Version Number: 16/05/2012 Page: 17 of 21

Middleton

Allocation Carriageway Carriageway £308,000 Classified Roads Priority Estimate Ward 100% Unclassified Roads Estimate Priority Ward Total £0.00 £308,000.00 £308,000.00 North Sadler Street £15,333.13 1 Middleton East Fern Close £11,131.63 1 Middleton South Boardman Fold Road £33,527.07 1 Middleton East Mount Road £39,446.94 1 Middleton North Church Street £6,231.45 1 Middleton

Page 64 North Brewster Street £3,059.07 1 Middleton North Clarkes Brow £12,198.53 1 Middleton Nowell Road £19,855.65 1 Hopwood Hall Withington Green £4,607.49 1 Hopwood Hall Hopwood Road £33,999.15 1 Hopwood Hall West Kirkstone Drive £14,162.38 1 Middleton East Andover Avenue £13,029.39 1 Middleton West Bowness Road (b) £43,412.41 1 Middleton

£0.00 £249,994.29 £249,994.29

Version Number: 16/05/2012 Page: 18 of 21

Footway Footway Classified F/w Priority Estimate Ward 100% UnClassified F/w Estimate Priority Ward Total £0.00 £44,044.00 £44,044.00 Rectory Street West r £30,213.07 1 Middleton Boothroyden Close South £2,908.01 1 Middleton Boothroyden Road South £2,577.55 1 Middleton Bonny Brow Street South £2,610.60 1 Middleton

£0.00 £35,698.63 £35,698.63 Page 65

Total £285,692.92

Version Number: 16/05/2012 Page: 19 of 21

Pennine

Allocation Carriageway Carriageway 67% Classified £280,000 Roads Priority Estimate Ward 33% Unclassified Roads Estimate Priority Ward Total £160,773.20 £79,186.80 £239,960.00 Littleborough Smithy Bridge Road 1 £162,629.03 Lakeside Leach Street £3,238.46 1 Milnrow and Newhey Littleborough Littleborough Halifax Road 1 £36,765.59 Lakeside Abbey Drive £12,349.59 1 Lakeside Buckley View £3,899.37 1 Sbridge/Firgrove Meadowside £5,287.29 1 Milnrow and Newhey Simeon Street £6,231.45 1 Milnrow and Newhey

£199394.62 £31,006.17 £230,400.79 Page 66

Footway Footway Classified F/w Priority Estimate Ward 100% UnClassified F/w Estimate Priority Ward Total £0.00 £40,040.00 £40,040.00 The Elms Wardle & £6,609.11 1 Littleborough Greenwood Street Littleborough r £9,441.59 1 Lakeside Ogden Lane £4,229.83 1 Milnrow & Newhey Barnes Meadows Littleborough £14,143.49 1 Lakeside Elm Grove Wardle & £6,146.47 1 Littleborough Albion Street Wardle & £826.14 1 Littleborough £0.00 £41,396.63 £41,369.63

Total £271,770.42

Version Number: 16/05/2012 Page: 20 of 21

Page 67

Version Number: 16/05/2012 Page: 21 of 21

This page is intentionally left blank

Page 68 Agenda Item 14

CABINET TEMPLATE

Subject: Status: For Publication 2012 / 13 Highway Revenue Report

Report to: Date: Heywood Township Monday 21 st May Pennine Township Tuesday 22 nd May Rochdale Township Wednesday 23 rd May Middleton Township Thursday 24 th May Cabinet Tuesday 29 th May Report of: Helen Smith Email: Head of Property and Highways [email protected] Author: Lisa Houghton Network Improvement Team Leader (Impact Partnership) Tel: 01706 924 609 Cabinet Member : Councillor Beswick - Portfolio Holder for Highways

Comments from Section 151 Officer x Statutory Officers: Monitoring Officer x

Key Decision: Yes / No

Forward Plan x General Exception Special Urgency

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 The purpose of this report is to provide Townships final figures being presented for approval to Cabinet to for the 2012 / 2013 Highway Revenue Budget. The budget supports devolution of funding to Townships and supports the continued management, maintenance and improvement of the Borough’s Highway Network and Transportation Assets.

2. Recommendations

2.1 Township notes the overall Highway Revenue Budget at Appendix 1.

2.2 Township support the proposed breakdown of the funding for Non- Discretionary Fixed Costs of £ 5,576,957; and for Non-Discretionary Budget provision of £ 4,528,525

2.3 Cabinet note the £ 102,305 funding identified for townships from the devolved discretionary funding for Townships.

Version Number: 16/05/2012 Page: 1 of 8 Page 69 2.4 To provide enhanced delivery across the Highways Capital Programme an improved timetable for reporting progress on spend and new funding is proposed, where Townships can also formally discuss, advise and confirm priorities for the current and future financial year:

July 2012 All Township Committee’s – report on the Cabinet 2012/13 respective townships budget approvals including: • further funding required to complete existing schemes • new schemes to be considered for funding

November 201 2 All Township C ommittee’s - Progress on the current financial year 2012/13 programme for the respective townships, including an indicative forecast spend to the end of the financial year, and consultation on township priorities for 2012/13

February 201 3 Budget Fixing C ouncil – confirmed income and forecast spend for following financial year

June 2013 Cabinet – Report on the Budget Fixing Council formal approvals of the actual income for the new financial year, 2013/14, and of the GM LTP funding allocations and of any specific DfT grants secured.

3. Reasons for recommendations

3.1 The Rochdale TAMP (Transport Asset Management Plan) implemented in 2008, sets the scene for developing a rolling programme of highway network improvements and efficiency measures. This is to ensure that the aim for the transport network across Rochdale is maintained, at least above nationally accepted standards, driving economic prosperity and community safety and wellbeing. The TAMP also supports the Council’s policies on insurance and risk, with a clear strategy to reduce liability and claims, resulting from use of the highway network, across the Borough.

3.2 The budget for the Highways Reactive Works (see appendix A) has been reduced by £150,000 in line with savings proposal agreed at Cabinet

3.3 The highways revenue funding for 2012/13 is outlined below, with the details shown in Appendix1 and also indicates indicative income

201 2/13 Highway Revenue Budget Expenditure £ Income £ Net Total £

Non-Discretionary Fixed Costs 5,576,957 - 59,470 5,517,487

Version Number: 16/05/2012 Page: 2 of 8 Page 70 Non-Discretionary Budget Provision 4,528,525 - 466,622 4,061,903 Discretionary Funding 102,305 0 102,305 Total 10,207,787 - 526,092 9,681,695

3.2 Non-Discretionary Fixed Costs relate to budget items that the Highway and Engineering Service has limited, or no control over; the Association of Greater Manchester Authorities standard charges for the AGMA Transportation Unit, or Flood Warning Levy charges payable to the Environment Agency. Fixed Costs are a Borough wide provision and are therefore not devolved to Townships.

3.3 Non-Discretionary Budget Provision relates to budget items that are considered essential to support the Council’s statutory duty to maintain the highway network in a safe and efficient manner, in accordance with national codes of practice. It also includes budget items to ensure that the Highway Asset is maintained and improved in-line with the Borough’s Transport Asset Management Plan (TAMP). £91,801 has also been identified to ensure appropriate levels of supervision are provided to support the safe and efficient running of the existing highway network and new installations accommodating Metrolink.

3.4 Discretionary funding relates to unallocated budgets that will be devolved for consideration and allocation by each respective Township.

4. Budget Provision

4.1 The main areas of Budget Provision Expenditure cover the required statutory highway functions such as Network Management, Network Maintenance, Safety, Winter Maintenance and Risk Mitigation. Budget Provision is allocated as £ 4,528,525

4.2 An allocation of £ 834,068 has been included for Winter Maintenance, in the 2012 /13 Highway Revenue Budget. Policy and resilience levels for Winter Maintenance remains under review and options will be presented to Cabinet in summer 2012. The current budget provision is anticipated to deliver the minimum statutory requirement defined under the Department for Transport national code of practice.

4.3 Budget Income of £ 526,092 is anticipated to support Revenue expenditure and will be generated by a combination of Enforcement and Regulatory functions and through Development Control activities and additional Government grant funding for Safety based initiatives. Throughout 2012/13 additional funding sources and grants will be targeted further to those shown to support revenue activities.

5. Discretionary Funding for Townships

Version Number: 16/05/2012 Page: 3 of 8 Page 71 5.1 Discretionary funding across Townships has been monitored; with the aim to identify more accurately what maintenance funding is required in each Township area, in conjunction with the Transport Asset Management Plan. Significant planned maintenance is accommodated in the Highways Capital Programme.

5.2 Therefore to respond to the essential high levels of investment required across the highway network, no discretionary funding for 2012/13 can be apportioned to Townships.

5.3 The Discretionary Funding apportioned across Townships proposed elsewhere in the programme can be represented as follows (Township population shown in brackets) :

TOWNSHIP DISCRETIONARY 2012 / 13 Rochdale Middleton Heywood Pennine FUNDING FOR 2010 / 2011 Base (44%) (22%) (14%) (20%) Carnival Signs and orders 9,180 4,039 2,020 1,285 1,836 Festive Lights 93,125 40,976 20,487 13,037 18,625 Total 102,305 45,015 22,507 14,322 20,461

5.4 Cabinet note £90,000 of Township Discretionary funding required to support interest costs is available from the 2011/12 contribution for the 20mph school zones / prudential borrowing. There no further funding is currently requested from Townships in 2012/13. The indicative levels of investment that can be returned from the borrowing are indicated below:

Rochdale Middleton Heywood Pennine Indicative Investment returns £508,320 £191,446 £141,115 £191,986 £1,032,867

6. Alternatives Considered

6.1 No alternatives have been considered in lieu of the Highway Revenue Budget. Additional funding will continue to be sought through the Capital Programme allocations and from external funding sources such as the Department for Transport and Greater Manchester Local Transport Plan, and developer contributions to support and compliment schemes delivered under the Revenue programme. This approach will deliver added value wherever possible, and enhance the level of investment in the Rochdale Highway Asset.

7. Consultation undertaken / proposed

7.1 This report has been prepared in consultation with the Head of Finance, Head of Legal, and Lead member for Highways

7.2 Discretionary funding devolved to Townships is in consultation with Members and Township Officers to enable a more responsive approach in working with townships in targeting areas of greatest need.

8. Financial Implications

Version Number: 16/05/2012 Page: 4 of 8 Page 72

8.1 The Highway Revenue Budget as detailed within Appendix 1 is in-line with the Council’s overall Budget for 2012 / 13. The expenditure of the Highway Revenue Budget will be monitored in accordance with corporate financial monitoring procedures.

8.2 There are no additional Financial Implications to those already described within the proposed Highway Revenue Budget.

9. Legal Implications

9.1 There are no Legal implications resulting from the proposed Highway Revenue Budget.

10. Personnel Implications

10.1 The Highway Revenue Budget is delivered as part of the statutory functions carried-out by the Highway and Engineering Service. It is not anticipated that any Personnel issues will arise as a result of this Budget being approved.

11. Risk assessment implications

11.1 All the issues raised and the recommendations in this report involve risk considerations as set out below:

11.2 Winter Maintenance provision is subject to an independent review and therefore the Budget Provision is expected to deliver only the minimum statutory requirements as defined under the national code of practice for Winter Maintenance. (see para 4.2)

11.3 Pressures on the Highway Revenue Budget continue to limit the levels of planned maintenance and improvement as the limited resources are first directed to reactive work; aimed at keeping the highways network safe.

11.4 In recent years the prolonged periods of severe winter weather has significantly increased the rate of deterioration of our highway asset. The current levels of reactive maintenance work are unlikely to sustain the progress of recent years in reducing the cost of insurance claims against the Council. The DfT Winter Damage Fund has further supported the additional required improvements with allocations of £195,300 in 2010/11, and £498,000 for 2011/12.

11.5 DfT have awarded £78,000 Bikeability grant funding, to provide safer cycle training for over 1900 children to help reduce road collisions, also supporting many of the key transport and carbon reduction objectives of RMBC and GM.

11.6 Further investment to the value of £10million has been allocated to respond to TAMP (see 3.1) and the essential levels of priority highway maintenance required across the Borough of Rochdale as per.

Version Number: 16/05/2012 Page: 5 of 8 Page 73

11.7 The anticipated level of Income is based on previous years performance and monitoring. Market trends and the current economic climate still indicate that investor confidence is low, and therefore the anticipated level of Income only shows a marginal increase compared to that of previous years.

12. Equalities Impacts

12.1 Workforce Equality Impacts Assessment

There are no (significant) workforce equality issues arising form this report.

12.2 Equality/Community Impact Assessments

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

There is no background papers

Version Number: 16/05/2012 Page: 6 of 8 Page 74

Appendix 1 – 2012 / 2013 Highway Revenue Budget

2010 / 2011 2011 / 2012 2012 / 2013 2012 / 2013 HIGHWAY REVENUE BUDGET Base Base Base £ £ £ EXPENDITURE

NON DISCRETIONARY FUNDING - FIXED COSTS

RMBC Environmental Management - Service Contract 426,500 447,700 447,400 AGMA Urban Traffic Control 245,800 238,600 278,057 AGMA Transportation Unit 108,700 46,900 13,156 Environment Agency Flood Warning Defence Levy 98,200 98,200 102,811 Leasing Street Lighting Columns 2,200 0 0 Capital Financing Costs 1,714,700 1,860,400 2,104,100 Interest on Private Street Works Deposits 1,200 1,200 1,200 Insurance / Rates / Write Offs / Pensions -87,600 33,100 21,000 Impact Management Fees 1,784,900 1,377,900 0 Management and Staff Costs 0 0 1,480,691 Central Charges 0 694,800 1,128,542 Allocation to a Reserve 665,300 425, 300 0 Sub Total 4,959,900 5,224,100 5,576,957

NON DISCRETIONARY FUNDING - BUDGET PROVISION STREET LIGHTING Energy 1,025,500 1,046,000 0 Cyclic and General Maintenance 1,160,000 1,183,200 0 Non-Recoverable Costs 114,200 116,500 0 NETWORK MANAGEMENT Traffic Signs (inc Street Name Plates) 139,100 96,500 90,123 Road Markings 72,300 21,300 30,041 Metrolink supervision 0 143,000 91,801 NETWORK MAINTENANCE Highway Reactive Works 1,161,700 705,332 784,738 Highway Drainage and Gully Cleansing 486,500 397,200 405,147 Bridges and Structures 63,600 64,900 66,197 Vehicle Access Crossings 50,300 55,700 56,816 Term Service Contract Management Costs (Princess St) 400,400 408,400 416,563 NETWORK RISK MANAGEMENT Tripping Claims 1,147,300 1,411,800 1,335,900 Out of Hours Emergency Call Out 86,900 88,600 56,976 Non-Recoverable Accident Damage 42,200 43,000 43,853 NETWORK SAFETY Education, Training and School Crossing Patrols 327,100 327,600 316,302 WINTER MAINTENANCE

Version Number: 16/05/2012 Page: 7 of 8 Page 75 Statutory Winter Maintenance Function 385,300 834,068 834,068 10/11 Borough wide Efficiency Savings -199,000 0 0

Sub Total 6,463,400 6,943,100 4,528,525

DEVOLVED DISCRETIONARY FUNDING FOR TOWNSHIPS Carnival signs and Orders 7,500 9,000 9,180 Other Signs 1,400 0 0 Festive Lights 89,500 91,300 93,125 Maintenance and Network Management Schemes 210,600 214,800 0 Sub Total 309,000 315,100 102,305

TOTAL EXPENDITURE 11,732,300 12,482,300 10,207,787

INCOME

NON DISCRETIONARY INCOME - FIXED Private Street Works Interest Received -4,500 -4,500 -4,500 Management of Properties -2,100 -2,100 -2,170 Charge to Insurance Fund -52,800 -52,800 -52,800 Sub Total -59,400 -59,400 -59,470

NON DISCRETIONARY INCOME- BUDGET PROVISION HIGHWAY ENFORCEMENT Vehicle Access Crossings -50,300 -52,100 -53,144 Accident Damage Cost Recovery -54,000 -55,900 -58.475 NRSWA Inspection Fees -98,600 -102,000 -106.682 Permits and Licences -54,000 -56,000 -32,352 NETWORK MANAGEMENT Section 38 Development Supervision Charges -54,200 -56,200 -57,328 Temporary Road Closures -42,900 -44,400 -46,441 Grants and Gifts -164,800 0 0 External Contributions/Services to other bodies -79,600 -112,200 -112,200 Sub Total -598,400 -478,800 -466,622

NON DISCRETIONARY INCOME- BUDGET PROVISION Private Sponsors 0 0 0 Other Highways Work 0 0 0 TOTAL INCOME -657,800 -538,200 -526,092

Total Expenditure 11,732,300 12,482,300 10,207,787 Total Income -657,800 -538,200 -526,092 Net Total Highway Revenue Budget 11,074,500 11,944,100 9,681,695

Version Number: 16/05/2012 Page: 8 of 8 Page 76 Agenda Item 15

Subject: Street Services Matched Funding Status: For Publication

Report to : Middleton Township Date: 24th May 2012

Report of: Mark Widdup, Service Director Email: [email protected] (Operational Services) Tel: 01706 922005 Cabinet Member : Councillor Martin Burke Portfolio Holder for Internal And Environmental Services Comments from Section 151 Officer Statutory Officers: Monitoring Officer

Key Decision: Yes / No

Forward Plan General Exception Special Urgency

Purpose of Report: - To seek approval for matched funding against PIF investment and to approve specific schemes for use of Township Funds.

1. RECOMMENDATIONS

1.1 Cabinet at its meeting on 30 January 2012 approved an allocation of £125,000 for investment funding within Operational Services from the Priority Investment Fund.

1.2 Township are asked to approve match funding against the above additional PIF funding and be requested to approve specific schemes and use of Township Funds as detailed in Paragraph 5.2 of this report.

1.3 Township are asked to formally approve match funding against the above additional PIF funding and be requested to delegate approval of specific schemes and use of these Township Funds to Middleton Township Devolved Funding and Devolved Services Sub Committee

1.4 Members note that the original proposal (PO4 – Review of Street Services) has been approved by Cabinet and Full Council on 22 February 2012 as part of the Council’s Efficiency Programme and the saving of £500K will be achieved from the EM budgets from 1 April 2012.

2 REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS

2.1 As part of the consultation exercise on the Street Services Review currently being submitted within the Council’s latest programme of efficiency measures, Members expressed concern over the potential impact the proposal would have on the street scene across the Borough.

Version Number: Page: 1 of 6

Page 77 2.2 They were particularly concerned in the direct impact the reductions in front line provision in the area of street services would have at a Township level. There was a view that Townships would consider allocating money from their Township funds into this area if the Council matched this funding from within existing resources.

3 ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED

3.1 The original proposal for savings in street services has been approved and implemented. The Service will continue to manage the service in order to mitigate the potential impact this reduction in front line delivery will have.

4 BACKGROUND & SUMMARY OF EXISTING PROPOSAL

4.1 This original proposal ‘PO4 - Review of Street Services’ is designed to assist Members in coming to a decision on how costs in delivering frontline services in Parks, Streets and Open Spaces (excluding RBH managed land and Schools) may be reduced to realise significant financial savings within the Place theme. Other proposals have taken into account the reduction of various budget headings such as materials and equipment; this specific proposal was focused on the reduction of operatives and direct costs, which is the largest single budgetary provision.

4.2 Environmental Management has a significant budget which is predominantly focussed on delivering front line services to residents of the borough. As a result of the economic situation, there is a requirement to consider whether the Council can continue to deliver these types of services in the same way.

4.3 After the implementation of the recent Phase 3 Savings Programme the annual spend on Street Services was £4.8m. This includes Parks, Street and Open Spaces (excluding RBH managed land and Schools).

4.4 Whilst there are some efficiencies that can be managed out of current staff with minimum disruption to standards of delivery due to the introduction of the E.M. Transformation Programme, it must be noted that any significant reduction in numbers of operatives will have a recognisable detrimental impact on the quality of the local environment and possibly customer satisfaction with the Council.

4.5 Background: Statutory responsibilities – Code of Practice Litter & Refuse (includes Graffiti, fly posting etc) officially known as section 89(7) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 sets out practical guidance on the discharge of the duties under section 89(1) and (2) of that Act on certain landowners and occupiers to keep specified land clear of litter and refuse, and on local authorities and the Secretary of State to keep clean public highways for which they are responsible.

4.6 The code of practice requires local authorities to Zone areas according to type of land and use and specifies graded levels of cleanliness and timelines where local authorities must respond to land below an acceptable standard. The minimum time is half a day for Zone 1 areas for example town Centre’s etc to 14 days for rural roads and high density housing.

4.7 How a local authority performs in relation this code of practice is measured through National Performance indicator NI195. At present Rochdale now perform generally in line with other performing well authorities nationally in terms of street cleanliness with last years average percentage of land falling below an acceptable standard being only 6%. It should be noted however that this target was achieved due to Pump Priming stretch Target funding received over three years from Government Office North West. That funding ended in April 2010 and an exit strategy was put in place (Transformation Programme mentioned earlier in this report) to help retain this level of performance.

4.8 In addition to the litter Code of Practice mentioned above, the Authority also has a duty to maintain its grass verges and related horticultural features such as hedges shrub beds etc to a reasonable standard. There are no specific statutory guidelines or requirements for minimum standards or frequency of maintenance, but good horticultural practice would be something that we do not have the resource to meet at present capacity at this time anyway.

Version Number: Page: 2 of 6

Page 78

4.9 In general terms, frequency for related maintenance regimes are as follows:

• Street Cleansing of town centre’s – daily throughout the day which is achieved but only early mornings on weekends

• Street Cleansing of shop fronts including litter bin emptying at least once per day – general achieved at present but only weekdays only

• Street Cleansing all other areas - target of fortnightly general achieved but varying levels of care required from neighbourhood to neighbourhood to keep to a reasonable standard

• Grass cutting in the summer at least fortnightly to a frequency of 2 to 3 days on high profile ornamental areas (dependant on weather conditions).

• Shrub Bed maintenance is carried out only once per year – Ideally and generally nationally at least twice per year

• Rose beds and hedges three times per year

• Edging off of grass verges 1 to 2 years

• Sharps removals on the day – achieved at present

• Fly tipping removal 2 to 3 days – generally achieved

• Graffiti removal fortnightly for general graffiti and fly posting achieved and same day for offensive graffiti achieved at present.

4.10 The following table (Table 1) provides an illustration of the resources in Street Services both before and after the pending approval of the original proposal.

Table 1 – Comparison of existing and proposed staffing /vehicle levels 2012

Staff pre Staff post Vehicles pre Vehicles post Savings Savings Savings Savings Proposal Proposal Proposal Proposal Rochdale 43 38 15 15 North/South/Central

Heywood 19 15 6 6

Middleton 23 18 11 11

Pennines 19 15 7 7

Gateways 4 4 2 2

Borough Wide 2 2 2 2

Totals 110 92 43 43

Version Number: Page: 3 of 6

Page 79 4.11 The following table (Table 2) provides a comparison for Members to see how the Service intends to mitigate the impact of the original proposal (if approved by Members) in order to minimise the effects on the Borough’s Street Scene.

Table 2 – Comparison of existing and proposed service across Street Services

Activity Existing Frequency Proposed arrangements for April 2012 (for discussion with Townships) Visit to all Town Centres and Daily No change shop frontages

Visit to other Zone 1 high Daily No change footfall areas

Residential Schedule (every street is Fortnightly Monthly checked and cleaned as required).

Residential Sweeper Schedule Fortnightly No change

Gateway Routes Daily No change

Reactive Hit Teams Deal with emergency No change spillages, sharps, flytipping Grass cutting 15 to 20 times a year 9 times a year Edges Strimmed 9 times a year Stop Hedge Trimming Twic e a year Once a year Rose Pruning 6 times a year Twice a year Parks No change Bowling Greens No change

4.12 Officers have presented the above options in Table 2 as part of the PO4 – Review of Street Services and they have been approved by Cabinet. Although this was agreed, the detailed operation needs to be discussed and agreed on an individual Township basis. This will include a discussion around local priorities and also to ensure we manage the delivery against locally agreed performance indicators.

4.13 Now that the additional funding has been approved from PIF the purpose of this report is to ask Townships to approve the match funding from Township funds and also to start the process of consultation with Townships on how this additional funding would be used. The options are detailed in Paragraph 5 below.

4.14 The Council currently provides grounds maintenance to Rochdale Boroughwide Housing under a Service Level Agreement. The levels of service to be delivered on RBH estates will be agreed as part of the discussions around the service level agreement.

5 Options for Townships in 2012/13

5.1 To consider any additional Street Services which they may wish to commission over and above the provision from the EM budgets and current provision from Township funds and fund this from Townships Funds with matched funding from PIF (up to a maximum of £125K). It is important to note this PIF funding is ‘one off’ and will only be available for 2012/13.

5.2 Options for consideration of distribution of £125K

Version Number: Page: 4 of 6

Page 80 (i) To pro-rata the £125K across Townships based on population in the same way Township Funds are calculated, noting that this will not necessarily reflect the distribution of green space across Townships;

Township % split Township Funds (pro rata) (£’000) Rochdale 44.4 55.5 Heywood 13.9 17.4 Middleton 22.2 27.8 Pennines 19.5 24.3 Total 100 125

(ii) To invite bids from Townships for different schemes recognising the different approaches and priorities individual Townships may have.

6 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

6.1 Townships are allocated revenue funding at £2 per head in 2012/13 and will/may have unspent funding from 2011/12 which would be carried forward. It will be for Townships to determine how this funding will be committed based on individual Township Priorities.

6.2 Where a Township has determined that they wish to prioritise additional street services, Members have identified £125k of one off funding from carry forward PIF funding that can be used. This funding is one off and is cash limited at the £125k. Should Townships wish to continue with additional services in future years these would need to be funded in total from Township Funds.

6.3 The Service Director for Finance and Procurement has been involved in putting together this report.

7 LEGAL IMPLICATIONS

7.1 There are no significant legal issues at this stage save that the Council has a statutory duty to keep public highways, parks and open spaces clean. Any changes to services will need to ensure compliance with the statutory duty.

7.2 The Service Director for Corporate Services has had input into the wider review of street services and is fully aware of these proposals.

8 PERSONNEL IMPLICATIONS

8.1 The Service has worked closely with staff and the trade unions and we can report to Members that there will be no compulsory redundancies if the original proposal (PO4) is approved.

8.2 The staffing reductions will be delivered in the following way;

• 12 Operatives have transferred from Street services to Waste Services. They have filled posts previously held by Agency staff; • 2 Operatives have transferred from Street services to Sports Operatives vacancies; • 4 Operatives will take ER/VR by March 2012.

8.3 Although the proposed reduction is regrettable the consultation process has been a real success. If Members approve the proposal it would mean that the savings can be delivered without recourse to the Council’s redundancy selection procedure.

8.4 As described in paragraph 6 above full consultation on the Review of Street Services has been carried out with staff and trade unions and staff have been involved in the suggested approach for next year.

Version Number: Page: 5 of 6

Page 81

8.5 If additional funding is approved from PIF and Townships funds the staffing resources required to undertake any additional work would be assessed when work has been commissioned by Townships. For example, one Township may wish to increase the delivery of basic essential street cleansing resource whilst another Township may want more resources in grounds or parks.

8.6 If the additional funding is approved the Service Director will discuss potential requirements with each Township chair and agree what additional resources are required.

9 RISK ASSESSMENT IMPLICATIONS

9.1 Additional funding would help to mitigate the risk across the Borough of a decline in the Street Scene.

9.2 This funding if approved is only for 2012/13 and would not be available in subsequent years.

10 ASSET IMPLICATIONS

10.1 There are no specific asset implications for Members to consider arising from this report.

11 JOINT WORKING

11.1 The Service will continue to work collaboratively with other Council Services, Partners in order to maintain essential services to the Borough.

Background Papers Document Place of Inspection

Or there are no background papers

Version Number: Page: 6 of 6

Page 82 Agenda Item 16 ITEM NO.

TOWNSHIP COMMITTEE REPORT

Subject: Middleton Township Funds Status: For decision 2011/12 Review

Report to : Middleton Township Committee Date: 24th May 2012

Report of: Jill Hodkinson, Head of Ema il: [email protected] Townships, Performance & Transformation Service Tel: 01706 924351 Cabinet Member : N/A …………… Portfolio Holder for N/A

Comments from Section 151 Officer Statutory Officers: Monitoring Officer

Key Decision: Yes / No

Forward Plan General Exception Special Urgency

1. PURPOSE OF REPORT

1.1 A review of revenue and capital expenditure during 2011/12 and recommend the allocation of funds in 2012/13.

2. RECOMMENDATIONS

2.1 Members note the expenditure, commitments and balances for Middleton Township revenue and capital funds at financial year end 2011/12 (Appendix 1 and 2).

2.2 Members consider the findings of the review of funding streams in 2011/12 detailed in Appendix 3 as they will be asked to approve the allocation of Townships Funds for 2012/13 to proposed funding streams based on this review.

2.3 Members note improvements to the procedures and systems for financial monitoring and administering of the Township funds have been achieved in 2011/12 with further developments planned in 2012/13 to share best practice across the Townships and improve monitoring processes.

2.4 Grants awarded and projects funded made a difference to the local community with improvements to local facilities, increased social interaction and development of solutions to local needs. Members are asked to note the variety of projects funded during 2011/12 with feedback received to date detailed in Appendix 4.

Version Number: Page: 1 of 3

Page 83

2.5 Reasons for recommendation

Management of the Middleton Township Fund is delegated to the Middleton Township Devolved Funding and Services Sub Committee.

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

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

3. REVIEW OF MIDDLETON TOWNSHIP FUNDS 2011/12

3.1 Members note expenditure, commitments and balances for Middleton Township revenue and capital funds (Appendix 1 and 2). Summary of the final outturn for financial year 2011/12 as agreed with Accountancy will be reported to the next scheduled funding committee.

3.2 A review of Middleton Township revenue and capital funds has been undertaken and information from this review will be used to inform the proposed allocation of Township Funds to funding streams in 2012/13.

3.3 Procedures and systems implemented in 2011/12 have improved the administration of Township funds and future developments are planned in 2012/13 to achieve enhanced monitoring of projects/schemes and clarity.

3.4 Evaluation of projects provides useful information to the Township Office relating to identifying the effectiveness of the application process and management of grants; whether projects deliver value for money; applicants achieve their objectives and evidence their successes, and ensure the completed projects funded complied with the terms and conditions of the fund. In 2011/12 grants awarded and projects funded made a difference to the local community with improvements to local facilities, increased social interaction and development of solutions to local needs. An idea of the variety of projects funded during 2011/12 with their feedback received to date is detailed in Appendix 4.

3.5 Members will be asked to consider officer recommendations on the allocation of Township Funds for 2012/13 to proposed funding streams, based on the review of the previous year’s funds (Appendix 3).

3.6 Terms and conditions for Township revenue and capital funds have been revised in line with findings during the administration of funds during 2011/12. Members will be asked to agree to the terms and conditions, and delegation process in June 2012.

3.7 Township funds procedures and systems were audited in 2011/12 and recommendations were made to improve the financial monitoring and administration of the funds. Audit’s recommendations have been implemented with further developments planned in 2012/13 to share best practice across the Townships and improve the monitoring process with Services.

Version Number: Page: 2 of 3

Page 84

3.8 Alternatives considered

No alternatives have been considered.

3.9 Consultation proposed/undertaken

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

4. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

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

4.2 Township funds are monitored on a monthly basis and financial monitoring reports will be presented to future Committees on a regular basis.

5. LEGAL IMPLICATIONS

5.1 There are no legal implications arising from this report.

6. PERSONNEL IMPLICATIONS

6.1 There are no personnel implications arising from this report.

7. RISK ASSESSMENT IMPLICATIONS

7.1 There are no specific risk issues for Members to consider arising from this report.

8. EQUALITIES IMPACTS

8.1 Workforce Equality Impacts Assessment

There are no workforce equality issues arising form this report.

8.2 Equality/Community Impact Assessments

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

Background Papers Document Place of Inspection Revenue Fund Summary 2011/12 Appendix 1 Capital Fund Summary 2011/12 Appendix 2 Middleton Township Year End Revenue Appendix 3 & Capital Funds Review 2011/12 Examples of projects funded during Appendix 4 2011/12 with feedback

Version Number: Page: 3 of 3

Page 85 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 86 Page 87 Page 88 Page 89 Page 90 Page 91 Page 92 Page 93 Page 94 Page 95 Page 96 Page 97 Page 98 Page 99 Page 100 Page 101 Page 102 Page 103 Page 104 APPENDIX 3 MIDDLETON TOWNSHIP YEAR END REVENUE & CAPITAL FUNDS REVIEW 2011/12

REVENUE Fund Budget 11/12 Review

The £17,500 budget was all brought forward from 2010/11. No allocation was made in 2011/12 due to the reduction in revenue funding from £4 per head of population to £2 per head. £8,500 £17,500 Community Grants Fund was awarded to 10 community groups in 2011/12 on schemes ranging from health information

days to a flower festival to celebrate the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee. There is a carry forward of funds of £9,000 into 2012/13

Officers recommend that as in 2011/12, no further funding allocation is made to Community Grants for 2012/13, but the carry forward of £9,000 is left available for Community Grant applications made in this financial year.

The £57,200 budget was made up of a brought forward figure of £22,200 from 2010/11 and an Events Budget Fund £57,200 allocation of £35,000 for 2011/12. This fund was used as usual to cover events such as May Day

Page 105 and Middfest and the Holiday at Home scheme.

Officers recommend that £35,000 is allocated in 2012/13 if Members wish to continue funding the above annual Middleton events

This budget was made up entirely of the brought forward figure of £4.000. This was the remaining Over 60’s Fund £4,000 balance from the original allocation of £40,000 made in 2007/08. The fund has now been completely allocated and was used to fund older people’s activities across the town.

Officers recommend that no further allocation is made to this fund.

The £70,000 budget was made up of a brought forward figure of £33,900 and a budget allocation in 2011/12 of £36,100. £52,700 was either spent or committed in 2011/12 as follows: Community Safety – 31.4%, Middleton Town Centre Management & Events – 30.5%, Highways Project Commissioning £70,000 Schemes – 22.6%, Children & Young People – 12.7%, Heritage – 1.9% & Environment – 0.9% Fund As an agreement in principle has been made by the Chair and Vice Chair to allocate £27,800 from this fund for Street Services which will be match funded by central Council Funds. To try and make more funds available in this fund, several old schemes which are unlikely to go ahead were decommitted at the year end leaving a carry forward figure into 2012/13 of £23,000. Officers recommend that as in 2011/12, an allocation of £36,100 to this fund.

Page 1 of 2 APPENDIX 3 Fund Budget 11/12 Review North Ward Fund £7,900 Each Ward was allocated £5,000 in 2011/12, apart from Hopwood Hall, whose funding is allocated on a pro-rata basis to a third, ie £1,700. The balance of the funds for each ward is made South Ward Fund £18,700 up of the brought forward figures from 2010/11. Ward Funds are used to meet very local needs. In 2011/12 ward funds spent or committed 78.3% East Ward Funds £11,700 (£44,150) of the available funding with the balance to carry forward into 2012/13. The funding was used as follows: Highways Schemes – 68.5% West Ward Funds £15,500 Community Activities – 18.8% Environmental Projects – 12.7% Hopwood Hall Funds £2,600

Officers recommend that North, South East and West Wards are allocated £5,000 each and Hopwood Hall £1,700 pro-rata CAPITAL Page 106 Fund Budget 11/12 Review

North Ward Fund £16,800 Each Ward was allocated £4,500 in 2011/12, apart from Hopwood Hall, whose funding is allocated on a pro-rata basis to a third, ie £1,500. The balance of the funds for each ward is made South Ward Fund £14,700 up of the brought forward figures from 2010/11. As with Revenue, Capital Ward Funds are used to meet very local needs. In 2011/12 ward funds East Ward Funds £9,700 spent or committed 78.4% (£46,900) of the available funding with the balance to carry forward into 2012/13. The funding was used as follows: West Ward Funds £13,600 Highways Schemes – 71.4% Community Activities – 17.1% Hopwood Hall Funds £5,000 Environmental Projects – 11.5%

Officers recommend that North, South East and West Wards are allocated £4,500 each and Hopwood Hall £1,500 pro-rata There was no brought figure from 2010/11, the full budget was allocated in 2011/12. 99.6% (£69,200) was spent/committed in the financial year as follows: Capital Commissioning £69,500 Highways Schemes – 57.8% Fund Community Activities – 4.3% Heritage Lighting Columns – 37.9% Officers recommend that £69,500 is allocated to the Capital Commissioning Fund.

Page 2 of 2 APPENDIX 4

Middleton Township funds are making a difference to the local community. Examples of successful applications in 2011/12 illustrate the type of projects that have been awarded funding.

Middleton Holiday at Home 2011

‘…increasing sport, art, culture and leisure opportunities for children and young people during the summer holidays’

Craig McAteer, Managing Director Link4Life

Grant Recipient: Link4Life Project: Middleton Holiday at Home 2011 Awarded: £20,000

Middleton Holiday at Home 2011 was a programme of leisure activities for children and young people during the summer holidays from 15 July 2011 to 2 September 2011. The programme was a great success at increasing sport, art, culture and leisure opportunities for children and young people with 3,574 attending (an increase on last year of 48%). Link4Life co-ordinated the programme and used the skills and expertise of existing local clubs to deliver exciting sport and physical activities that would improve the health, self esteem and well being of children and young people. Some of the many activities funded included tennis, arts and crafts, street dance, badminton, American football, swimming, basketball, drama workshops and self defence sessions. Plans are underway to deliver a programme of summer holiday activities for children and young people in Middleton for 2012.

Page 107   Days Gone By

‘Elderly people reminiscing about Christmas past, stories and even some poetry…lots of information to bring some festive cheer’

Christine Abbott Demesne Community Centre

Grant Recipient: Demesne Community Centre Project: Days Gone By Awarded: £1,000

An opportunity for older people in Middleton to get together and participate in reminiscence activities about days gone by, exploring their life and history through food, story telling, poetry, music and dance. This project aimed to reduce isolation that many elderly people suffer and help them to forge new friendships with other members of the community. A Winter Hand Book was produced that recorded the memories, recipes, stories and poems shared, and this was distributed throughout Middleton during the winter holiday period when the elderly are more vulnerable and isolated if they have no family network. The free Hand Book gave essential information on keeping warm this Winter, useful contact telephone numbers and services that support the needs of older people.

  Hollin Link Over 60s Winter Warmer 

‘Attending the group helps…their mental well being…getting them out and about in the community’

Lois Tinker Hollin Estate Management Board

Grant Recipient: Hollin Estate Management Board Project: Hollin Link Over 60s Winter Warmer Awarded: £500

An arts and craft project that ran during the Autumn/Winter months, Hollin Link Over 60s Group made bookmarks, decollage cards and calendars for distribution free to elderly, disabled and other isolated people living in the Hollin area. The group is made up of both elderly, disabled elderly and also carers who have the opportunity for some respite whilst mixing with other people in the community as social exclusion is a common problem when their partner has dementia or is housebound. Hollin Link Over 60s Group promote mental well being and good health by encouraging older people in the community to get out and about. Former members of the group who now have problems with mobility making them housebound or have become 24 hour carers were made to still feel part of the group through the hand crafted gifts sent to them. Page 108   Stanycliffe Luncheon Club

‘…popular luncheon supports approximately 30 elderly people from Boarshaw, Hollin and East Middleton per session’

Stanycliffe Luncheon Club

Grant Recipient: Stanycliffe Social Centre Project: Stanycliffe Luncheon Club Awarded: £500

Stanycliffe Luncheon Club is delivered by volunteers one day per week at Stanycliffe Social Centre with the support of Demesne Community Centre. The luncheon club applied to Middleton Township for funding to purchase cutlery, crockery and utensils. With a membership of about 30 elderly people from Boarshaw, Hollin and East Middleton per session, this popular luncheon club offers them a nutritious hot meal at an affordable price and aims to reduce the isolation of vulnerable members of the community and promote well being.

Alkrington Woods Teddy Bears Picnic

‘…all the children had a very enjoyable time. It was a huge success’

Sonia Elsey, Secretary Friends of Alkrington Woods

Grant Recipient: Friends of Alkrington Woods Project: Alkrington Woods Environmental Improvements and Teddy Bears Picnic Awarded: £270

Friends of Alkrington Woods promote the maintenance, management and improvement of the area and work to ensure visitors/residents benefit from and enjoy access to parking, footpaths, trails and facilities to nature reserve status. Funds awarded to the Friends of Alkrington Woods enabled the group to purchase equipment for removing Himalayan Balsam and Japanese Knotweed and general litter clearance. In addition, the group organised a Teddy Bears Picnic in the park for local children with free entertainment from Uncle Chris, Terry the Teddy, face painting, Punch and Judy, well dressed teddy contest and refreshments. The event was a great success with 150 children attending with their parents on a beautiful sunny day. Page 109 Friends of Wince Brook

‘…enthuse children in this project…give them a healthy interest in the environment for the rest of their lives’

David McKail Friends of Wince Brook

Grant Recipient: Friends of Wince Brook Project: Friends of Wince Brook Awarded: £500

Funds awarded to the Friends of Wince Brook enabled them to establish this new group to promote the conservation and improvement of the physical and natural environment of Wince Brook and the surrounding area for the benefit of the public. Working with local Councillors and the Countryside Rangers, the group have been identifying funds to improve the pathways, bridges, hedgerows and the green areas around Wince Brook. This Friends of group is actively recruiting new members and promoting the safeguarding of the future of Wince Brook for the recreational and educational use of all Middleton residents.

Page 110 Agenda Item 18

ITEM NO.

Title: Oldham and Rochdale Joint Housing Status: For Publication Strategy

Report to: Date:

Heywood Township Committee 21 st May 2012 Pennine Township Committee 22 nd May 2012 Rochdale Township Committee 23rd May 2012 Middleton Township Committee 24 th May 2012

For Consultation

Report of: Service Directo r of Customers Email: [email protected] an Communities Tel: 01706 924042 Cabinet Member: Councillor Linda Robinson, Portfolio Holder for Health, Adult Care & Housing Comments from Section 151 Officer √ Statutory Officers: Monitoring Officer √

Key Decision: Yes

Forward Plan √ General Exception Special Urgency

1. PURPOSE OF REPORT

1.1 This report seeks the views of Township Committee on the attached draft Oldham and Rochdale Joint Housing Strategy

1.2 The report also provides details about the development of a boroughwide Housing Strategy and delivery plan which will operate alongside the joint strategy with Oldham

2. RECOMMENDATIONS

2.1 Committee is requested to provide comments on the Oldham and Rochdale Joint Housing Strategy.

Page 111 1 2.2 Committee notes the process for developing a boroughwide housing strategy and accompanying action plan.

3. MAIN TEXT INCLUDING ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED/CONSULTATION CARRIED OUT

3. Introduction

3.1 Rochdale’s previous housing strategy “Delivering Change” covered the period 2006-10. Work began last year on the development of a new housing strategy for the borough

3.2 During our regular discussions with officers from Oldham’s Strategic Housing Team we were informed that they were also working on developing a new Housing Strategy. An agreement was reached to develop a joint strategy because of the similarities that exist in both boroughs, ie, we both share a common housing market, ie the north east area of Greater Manchester, the make up of the housing stock and population is similar, and the housing issues and challenges in Oldham and Rochdale are broadly the same. In addition to the above the development of a joint strategy would demonstrate a clearly articulated position at AGMA level.

3.3 Accordingly, in partnership with Oldham a draft three year joint housing strategy has been developed which will run until 2015, this ties into the 2011- 15 Affordable Home Programme which is managed by the Homes and Communities Agency. The draft strategy includes issues of joint interest and areas where the two Authorities can work together to address problems that are present in both boroughs.

4. Format of the housing strategy

4.1 The Joint Strategy is a short, concise, high level document focussing on the future direction of housing services in Oldham and Rochdale. It sets out the challenges and priorities which relate to both boroughs.

4.2 The Joint Housing Strategy includes an introduction, followed by sections on our vision, national, sub regional and local policy relating to housing, the key housing challenges and our joint priority aims

4.3 The housing priority aims for both boroughs are as follows:

Supporting development which meets economic needs

We want to encourage a choice of homes that meets needs and aspirations of our existing residents and help attract new residents into the boroughs. We want to develop high quality new homes in locations where people want to live and that support economic growth.

Making the best use of existing homes

Both Council’s are committed to making the best use of all existing homes available across the Oldham and Rochdale boroughs , to support our objectives to connect people to an improved housing offer and to achieve the right quantity of

Page 112 2 housing. We recognise that there is the potential within the existing housing stock in both borough’s to help meet local housing need.

Addressing fuel poverty and energy efficiency

Although over £17 m has been invested in both boroughs over the last 3 years to improve energy efficiency of homes, there are still residents who cannot afford to heat their homes to a healthy level. With continually rising energy bills and reduced household incomes, the problem is unfortunately getting worse. By improving the energy efficiency of homes, both existing and new, we will help to ‘fuel poverty proof’ homes and contribute to the reduction of carbon emissions at the same time.

Preventing homelessness

Partners in both boroughs have been successful in recent years in homeless prevention and reducing the number of priority households in temporary accommodation. However, the current housing market, welfare benefit reform and cuts in funding continue to increase pressure on homelessness. We want to continue to support local people who are most at risk of homelessness and help people to live independently.

Improving neighbourhoods

Attractive neighbourhoods which are well designed and managed and support integrated communities offer greater opportunities both for individuals and for wider economic prosperity. Such places are more likely to be successful and attractive to new residents. We want neighbourhoods to be safe, attractive places to live. Residents want the local environment to be good quality and well maintained, and free from the fear of crime.

5 . Development of Rochdale Borough Housing Strategy

5.1 Alongside the Joint Housing Strategy Rochdale will have a boroughwide housing strategy which will set out the specific challenges and priorities for the borough. We are currently working on the draft Rochdale Housing Strategy and we will be consulting widely on this document.

5.2 The strategy will have a three year delivery plan which will be regularly monitored and updated to reflect progress made. It is proposed that the boroughwide strategy will not be as detailed as previous strategies as the main focus will be on the achievement of the actions set out in the delivery plan. A draft of the boroughwide strategy will be submitted to a future Cabinet meeting.

6. Alternatives considered

6.1 Not to develop a high level Joint Housing Strategy with Oldham and just to develop a housing strategy for Rochdale. The reasons for and benefits of the Joint Strategy are been stated in 3.2 above.

7. Consultation proposed/undertaken

Page 113 3 7.1 In December 2011 a consultation exercise was carried out through the Council’s web site in respect of the five priorities in the joint housing strategy. All members were also consulted during December 2011 regarding the priorities

7.2 Whilst there were limited responses received to both consultations the feedback received was positive.

7.3 The consultation process for the joint housing strategy will involve the LPSB, the developers forum, Township Committees, Overview and Scrutiny Committee, housing association partners and RBH.

8. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

8. There are no financial implications relating to the joint housing strategy as it is a high level document which does not have a delivery plan.

9. LEGAL IMPLICATIONS

9.1 There are no legal implications.

10. PERSONNEL IMPLICATIONS

10.1 There are no personnel implications.

11. RISK ASSESSMENT IMPLICATIONS

11.1 Our approach to Strategic Housing is fundamental to achieving the objectives within Rochdale’s community strategy. In particular, the objectives of keeping and attracting skilled and high income families to the borough by improving skills to access jobs, Promoting and enabling healthy lifestyles and achieving good health and well being, encouraging people to take personal responsibility for their neighbourhoods and developing our communities to make them more resilient and cohesive and maximising the relationship with Manchester City Region. Rochdale’s developing Corporate Plan will support delivery of these priorities and having an effective approach to housing is a core element of the Council’s ambitions. It is essential therefore that we have a local strategy which demonstrates how we will address these priorities.

12. EQUALITIES IMPACTS

12.1 Workforce Equality Impacts Assessment

There are no significant workforce equality issues arising from this report

12.2 Equality/Community Impact Assessments

An Equality Impact Assessment hasn’t been carried out as the joint housing strategy is a high level strategic document which sets out the joint challenges and priorities for both Oldham and Rochdale. We are currently in the process of developing a more detailed and specific Housing Strategy for Rochdale based on

Page 114 4 the priorities identified in the Joint Plan. We will carry out a full Equality Impact Assessment on the Rochdale Housing Strategy

Background Papers Document Place of Inspection Oldham and Rochdale Housing Strategy Customers and Communities Service , 2012-15 Floor 4, Municipal Offices, Smith Street, Rochdale

Page 115 5 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 116

DRAFT Oldham and Rochdale Housing Strategy

2012 – 2015

Version 2 Page 117 Welcome

We’re delighted to introduce our new Housing Strategy for Oldham and Rochdale. Having worked together for many years on the Housing Market Renewal Programme and other major regeneration schemes, we recognise that both boroughs share similar challenges and opportunities. Access to housing remains a priority for our residents, but we are determined to find news ways to deliver improvements. Whilst there are significant challenges ahead, we look forward to responding to these in a positive and innovative way. This Strategy, and the ongoing work with our partners to deliver it, is of fundamental importance in meeting those challenges.

We believe that housing will play a crucial role in our economic regeneration in terms of new development, construction jobs and improving the quality of existing homes and neighbourhoods. This is a new type of strategy which we hope sets out clearly and simply our vision and priorities. We want to work with partners and residents to improve the quantity, quality and access to housing for both Oldham and Rochdale.

Councillor David Hibbert Councillor Linda Robinson Chair of Oldham Housing Partnership Cabinet Member for Health, and Cabinet Member for Housing, Adult Care and Housing Transport and Regeneration

Page 118

1. Our Housing Strategy

Oldham and Rochdale are neighbouring boroughs in the North West and home to around 420,000 people. Both boroughs are part of 10 local authorities which make up Greater Manchester. With a population of 2.6 million and a travel-to-work commuter population of over 5 million, this makes Greater Manchester the second largest conurbation in the UK.

We share similar economic, social and housing challenges and have a successful track record of joint working to improve our economies and quality of housing. We believe a joint strategy will better enable us to maximise economic growth, increasing the prosperity and economic development of the boroughs, and make a telling contribution to the overall quality of life for our residents.

Economic growth is the key priority for Greater Manchester. It is vital for Oldham and Rochdale to contribute to the growth of the sub-region by maximising investment into the Boroughs and improving access to employment and training opportunities for our residents.

The recession and subsequent withdrawal of funding for the Housing Market Renewal Programme from April 2011 has left challenges in our ability to help stimulate new housing development, improve the quality of existing homes and provide housing services as we’ve done previously.

This Housing Strategy sets out –

- Our challenges - What we’ve done recently to address them and - Our vision and priorities for the next 3 years

In Oldham, the strategy will be backed up by a more detailed annual delivery plan setting out how we will work with partners to ensure to ensure our key priorities are delivered. In Rochdale, it will be linked to a three year borough-wide strategy and action plan which will address the key challenges and priorities set out in this document.

Page 119

2. Our Vision

For Oldham…..

Our ambition is to establish a co-operative future for Oldham, one where the council works alongside partners, businesses and residents to realise our ambitions. We want to capitalise on our current offer – our excellent location, convenient transport links and our history and heritage, so that Oldham plays a greater role in Greater Manchester. Our ambitions for high quality housing for both new and existing residents are central to this. We want all members of the community to play an active part in building our vision.

For Rochdale……

Rochdale is the birth place of the co-operative movement and in line with the principles of this movement our strategic vision for housing involves working in co-operation with partners, developers and residents to support the creation of balanced and sustainable communities. We wish to see the development of a mix of property types and tenures which will meet the housing needs of current and future generations and support economic growth and regeneration across the borough. We will strive to provide the opportunities for everyone to be able to reach their potential regardless of where they live

Housing vision for Oldham and Rochdale

Over the next three years, we will tackle our economic and social challenges to improve the quantity, quality and access to housing for Oldham’s and Rochdale’s citizens.

We will do this by focussing on 5 key priorities:

• Supporting development that meets economic need • Making better use of existing homes • Addressing fuel poverty and energy efficiency • Preventing homelessness and supporting communities • Improving neighbourhoods

These are set out in more detail in Section 7.

3. Our Partners

Partnership working is at the heart of the development and delivery of this Housing Strategy. Our partners include -

• The residents of Oldham and Rochdale • Registered Providers (RPs), previously known as housing associations • Developers • The Voluntary sector • The Association of Greater Manchester Authorities (AGMA) • Government agencies including the Homes and Communities Agency (HCA) • NHS Oldham and NHS Rochdale

4. The National and Greater Manchester Context Page 120

4.1 The Economy

For nearly four years, Britain has been experiencing severe economic downturn which has impacted on the housing markets of Oldham and Rochdale. Limited borrowing available from banks has affected funding for new housing and the ability of householders to access mortgages and finance to buy or improve homes. The reduction in Government funding has also had a major impact on investment in new and existing homes. Notably, this includes –

• Housing Market Renewal – loss of £16 m funding in 2010/11 for the renewal programmes in Derker, Werneth, East Central Rochdale and Langley. • Loss of Regional Housing Capital funding for private sector funding (was £3 m in Oldham and Rochdale in 2010/11). • Reduction in funding for Supporting People Service – This will have a significant impact on the services provided to vulnerable people across both boroughs.

The economic situation isn’t just affecting housing - residents are having to face reduced income and job prospects against increasing food, fuel and energy costs.

4.2 National Housing Context

The Government has developed a number of initiatives to generate new housing development and delegate greater responsibilities to councils and communities, which will shape our strategy.

National Housing Strategy - In November 2011, the Government launched its new Housing Strategy: ‘Laying the Foundations’, which sets out its approach to addressing the housing shortage. The Strategy aims to tackle the housing shortage, boost the economy, create jobs and help people on to the housing ladder. The Strategy sets out a package of reforms to -

• get the housing market moving again • create a more responsive, effective and stable housing market • support choice and quality for tenants • improve environmental standards and design quality

Localism Act - The Localism Act sets out the Government’s plans to shift power from central government back into the hands of individuals, communities and councils. In terms of housing, this includes greater flexibility around how social housing is allocated, changes that allow homeless families to be housed in the Private Rented Sector and the introduction of fixed term tenancies.

Affordable Rent - Registered Providers can now let new tenancies at a higher rent of up to 80% of the open market rent, known as ‘Affordable Rents’, with this additional money to be used to help fund the development of new affordable homes. The main issues for both Councils to address in relation to affordable rents include:

• Ensuring that revenue raised is used to fund the delivery of new affordable housing in each borough. • Assessing the impact of potential rent increases on affordability for local residents in housing need.

The Green Deal - The Green Deal, due to be launched in autumn 2012, intends to reduce carbon emissions by improving the energy efficiency of properties. It provides a means for home owners and landlords to secure capital upfront for energy efficiency measures, which will be paid back by future savings through energy bills. This will mean:

• All households (including low income households) will be able to access installation of energy saving measures without having to find upfront capital. • An ‘Energy Company Obligation’ will offer further financial support for vulnerable households and hard to treat homes.Page 121

Welfare Reform - The Welfare Reform Bill introduces a wide range of reforms designed to make the benefits and tax credits system fairer and simpler and improve financial incentives to work. The main challenges for landlords’, tenants and the Council to consider include:

• Household cap on benefits • Housing benefit for working age claimants in the social rented sector • Limits for households deemed to be under-occupying • Local Housing Allowance and the housing element of Universal Credit • Increased age threshold from 25 to 35 under which single claimants are entitled only to the shared room rate

4.3 Greater Manchester Context

In April 2011, the 10 councils of AGMA created a ‘Combined Authority’ to co-ordinate key economic development, regeneration and transport functions. Specific to housing, a range of funding and strategy issues are now being developed at a Greater Manchester level. These include -

• Delivering the objectives and priorities in the Greater Manchester Strategy and the Greater Manchester Housing Strategy 2010 to drive economic growth • Delivering the objectives identified in the Greater Manchester Local Investment Plan. This document sets the direction for the delivery of key aspects of the ‘Creating Quality Places’ strategic priority of the Greater Manchester Strategy • Overseeing and prioritising funding programmes, including the Affordable Homes Programme and bids to address empty homes • GM Domestic Retrofit programme to improve the energy efficiency of homes • Developing a Local Authority Mortgage Scheme aimed at helping first time buyers get on the property ladder • Working on new models of investment as a way of stimulating new housing growth, especially high quality housing for private rent

In addition, a Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) became operational in April 2011 and is responsible for a range of initiatives to ensure the economic growth of Greater Manchester. This includes co-ordinating –

• Bids for the Regional Growth Fund to deliver investment and jobs within the Private Sector • Growing Places Fund to ensure new jobs and housing through loans

Greater Manchester City Deal

The City Deal for Greater Manchester was announced by Government in March 2012 and provides a platform for a radical devolution of powers from central Government. The deal sets out a range of bespoke agreements geared towards accelerating growth, boosting skills and encouraging local decision-making and increased self-sufficiency. The City Deal provides a package of housing related measures and builds upon the strong partnership between Government, AGMA, Housing providers and developers. It includes the establishment of a Housing Investment Board to use national funding, local investment and public land assets to boost housing development.

5. Oldham and Rochdale - Key Housing Challenges

5.1 Economic challenge

Reduced Government funding – The Government has cut funding for Housing Market Renewal and private sector housing. ThisPage is in 122 part being replaced through Growing Places Fund and other initiatives, which place an emphasis on loans rather than grants to promote new development, bring empty homes back into use and encourage economic growth.

Decrease in working households - The UK experienced an increase in unemployment of 10.1% over the year to December 2011. Unemployment in the North West increased by 13.4% during this time and by 15.3% in Greater Manchester, where it accounts for 81 974 people or 4.7 %. This has led to a decrease in the number of working households in Oldham and Rochdale.

Slow down in housing development - There’s been a 40% decline in housing construction, with 1099 homes built in both boroughs in 2006/7 and only 641 in 2010/11. This has impacted with a loss of jobs in the local construction industry and slow down in economic growth.

Access to home ownership – First time buyers are struggling to get access to mortgages. Banks often require a deposit of 25%, which means home ownership is out of reach for many residents. Even the cheapest homes in Oldham and Rochdale would require a deposit of over £12,000. This has led to an increase in demand for private rented and social housing and also overcrowding as young people stay living at home longer.

Fuel poverty - Across both boroughs, an estimated 21% of households are living in fuel poverty, meaning that they have to spend more than 10% of income heating their homes. This figure is predicted to rise due to increasing energy prices.

5.2 Housing Offer

Housing types - Oldham and Rochdale have the highest proportions of pre 1919 terraced housing in Great Manchester (42%). Feedback from residents and developers is that residents want a greater choice of different types of housing. Also there isn’t enough higher value housing in both boroughs, with only 1.05 % of homes in Council Tax Bands G and H compared to the regional average of 2.1% and a national average of 4.1%.

Quality of housing – In both boroughs there are some homes in the private sector which are in poor condition (30% in Oldham (in 2010) and 50 % in Rochdale (in 2007)). Many of these houses suffer from disrepair, lack modern facilities, have poor accessibility and aren’t energy efficient.

Empty homes - Although the number of long term empty homes across the two boroughs has been falling over the past 5 years, still nearly 3,000 private sector homes currently remain vacant for over 6 months.

5.3 People

An ageing population - The number of people aged 65 years and is anticipated to increase from 63,600 in 2008 to 82,000 in 2025 across both boroughs. The current population of 28,800 people aged over 75 years is set to rise to 41,700 by 2025. This will increase demand for housing related support to enable residents to remain in their own homes and for specialist supported housing.

BME Population - By 2021 is it expected that the BME population will increase to about 27 % of the population in Oldham (compared to 19.5% in 2009) and in Rochdale about 23% of the population (compared to 17.2% in 2009). This increase is mainly because of the relatively youthful age structures of the Pakistani and Bangladeshi heritage communities.

Growing numbers of households and younger people – Both boroughs are experiencing rising numbers of younger people. Oldham’s population is expected to grow to 10,900 by 2022 . Although most of this increase is from within the older age groups, an increase of 9.5% is also projected in the 0 – 16 age group to 49,800. Rochdale’s 0 -19 population is expected to rise from 54,100 to 55,400 by 2022 (an increase of 2.4%), with the 0-14 population rising to 42,900, an increase ofPage 4.9%. 123

Health and housing – There are major health inequalities within each borough. Life expectancy for residents varies by 12 years for residents living in different wards. There is a known link between poor housing and ill health. These include issues relating to cold homes, poor property condition (such as damp and mould), risk of trips and falls, overcrowding and homes that aren’t suitable for disabled people.

6. Building on our successes

Over the last 3 years, we’ve worked with our partners and made much progress in improving housing in the two boroughs, including:

6.1 Oldham

• Following the housing stock transfer of 12,000 homes to FCHO in February 2011, over £149 M of investment will be made in homes, neighbourhoods and services in the next 5 years. • The completion of a £130 M investment in over 1,400 sheltered homes and improved extra care provision. • Tackling fuel poverty by investing £9 M in over 5,600 energy saving measures (such as loft insulation). • An award-winning nationally-acclaimed Downsizing scheme, which has already freed up over 200 family homes. • Over 500 empty homes brought back into use. • Reducing homelessness acceptances from 961 households in 2003/4 to only 63 in 2010/11.

• Signing of the £ 113 M Gateways to Oldham contract which will see investment in over 700 new and existing homes.

• Clearing 880 homes to create sites for new development.

6.2 Rochdale

• The building of over 1,000 new homes across the borough in the last three years of which 457 were affordable homes

• Preventing 241 households from becoming homeless through the Mortgage Rescue Scheme

• Bringing 528 empty homes back into use.

• Obtaining £5.5 M through the Governments Kickstart Initiative to fund the development of the 153 new homes.

• Through the Housing Market Renewal Programme the Council acquired 16 properties and demolished 90 properties in 2010/11 to make way for new homes. In addition 215 private sector homes benefited from improvements.

• Completing 11,701 jobs through the Handyperson Scheme and 352 major disabled adaptations.

• Tackling fuel poverty by investment £8.27 M in 16,104 energy efficiency measures to 5,347 households across the borough.

Page 124 • Preventing 1,444 households from potentially becoming homeless.

7. Our priorities

Our Strategy reflects the objectives of the Greater Manchester Housing Strategy:

• Achieving the right Quantity of housing • Continuing to raise the Quality of the existing housing stock • Connecting People to an improved housing offer

Within our objectives, there are 5 priority aims -

Aim One: Supporting development that meets economic need

We want to encourage a choice of homes that meets the needs and aspirations of our existing residents and help attract new residents into the boroughs. We want to develop high quality new homes in locations where people want to live and that support economic growth.

Our priorities are to:

• Ensure housing supports economic growth and supports our wider plans to regenerate and improve the image of our boroughs • Increase the choice of family sized homes • Improve access to home ownership • Develop new ways of stimulating housing growth including building homes for the private rented sector

We will achieve this in the next 3 years by:

• Introducing ‘Local Authority Mortgage Schemes’ to enable first-time buyers to access the housing market. • Working with developers to encourage the development of higher value homes • Establishing new ways of development, including using Council land to support housing provision and local employment. • Working with Registered Providers to build 450 new affordable homes across both boroughs through the Affordable Homes Programme. • In Oldham, building a further 480 affordable homes through projects such as ‘Gateways to Oldham’.

Aim Two: Better Use of existing homes

Both Council’s are committed to making the best use of all existing homes available across the Oldham and Rochdale boroughs, to support our objectives to connect people to an improved housing offer and to achieve the right quantity of housing. We recognise that there is the potential within the existing housing stock in both borough’s to help meet local housing need.

Our priorities are to:

• Reduce levels of overcrowding and under occupation • Ensure empty homes are quickly brought back into use • Address standards in the private rented sector • Offer support and advice to older people and those with disabilities

We will achieve this in the next 3 years by:

• Ensuring £173 m is invested in improving social housing Page 125 • Reducing the costs of supported accommodation and making best use of our adapted and older people’s housing • Increasing Extra Care and developing specialist supported accommodation. • Increasing use of Equity Loans to fund improvements and adaptations • Bringing over 400 empty homes back into use across both boroughs • Operating downsizing schemes in both boroughs to release under occupied homes • In Oldham, letting 440 homes through the new social lettings agency

Aim Three: Addressing fuel poverty and energy efficiency

Although over £17 m has been invested in both areas over the last 3 years to improve energy efficiency of homes, there are still residents who cannot afford to heat their homes to a healthy level. With continually rising energy bills and reduced household incomes, the problem is unfortunately getting worse. By improving the energy efficiency of homes, both existing and new, we will help to ‘fuel poverty proof’ homes and contribute to the reduction of carbon emissions at the same time.

Our priorities are to:

• Increase uptake of measures and raise awareness of the benefits of being energy efficient • Improve the energy efficiency of housing stock (social, private and private rented) • Help tackle fuel poverty

We will achieve this in the next 3 years by:

• Encouraging residents to take up the ‘Green Deal’ • Insulating 75% of all lofts and cavity walls • Influencing residents on the benefits of behaviour change • Delivering the Greater Manchester Housing Retrofit strategy and forthcoming action plan to reduce domestic carbon emissions • Raising awareness among the health sector of the impacts of fuel poverty and how they can help • Working with Registered Provider’s to develop and deliver their own affordable warmth strategies • Developing and improve the referral system for those living in fuel poverty

Aim Four: Preventing homelessness and supporting communities

Partners in both boroughs have been successful in recent years in preventing homelessness and reducing the number of priority households in temporary accommodation. However, the current housing market, welfare benefit reform and cuts in funding continue to increase pressure on homelessness. We want to continue to support local people who are most at risk of homelessness and help people to live independently.

Our priorities are to:

• Keep levels of homelessness low and minimise the need for temporary accommodation • Provide support for low income groups

We will achieve this in the next 3 years by:

• Working with partners to mitigate the impact of welfare reform • Continually improving housing advice services for our residents • Developing one access point for supported accommodation and support services • Increasing the role of the private sector in preventing homelessness • Working together to meet the challenges faced by the transition to a new provider for the asylum contract in the north west region

Page 126 Aim Five: Improving neighbourhoods

Attractive neighbourhoods which are well designed and managed and support integrated communities offer greater opportunities both for individuals and for wider economic prosperity. Such places are more likely to be successful and attractive to new residents. We want neighbourhoods to be safe, attractive places to live. Residents want the local environment to be good quality and well maintained, and free from the fear of crime.

Our priorities are to:

• Increase the role of housing partners and our residents in managing and improving neighbourhoods • Improve the environment and quality of our neighbourhoods • Work with residents to tackle anti-social behaviour • Develop activities that give residents pride in their neighbourhoods.

We will achieve this in the next 3 years by:

• Deliver activity to address worklessness in social-rented housing • Using private sector enforcement action to improve the environment • Improving links to neighbourhood working. • Delivering more joined up services to provide management and support and avoid duplication • Working with partners to address specific issues in priority neighbourhoods • Getting residents to play an active role in improving their neighbourhoods

8. Next Steps

How the Strategy will be monitored This 3 year joint strategic housing plan is backed up by annual delivery plan in Oldham and a three year strategy and action plan in Rochdale. These set out and monitor in more detail how each priority will be achieved. The delivery of targets in the strategy will be supported by other local strategies (such as the Local Development Framework and the Corporate Plan) and action plans put together by both Councils and partner agencies.

9. Contacts

Oldham Council Rochdale Council Housing Strategy Team Strategy and Policy Unit Tel: 0161 770 5261 Tel: 01704 924042 Email: [email protected] Email:

Partners and agency websites

• Oldham Council Oldham Council • Rochdale Council • Oldham Partnership Oldham Partnership • Oldham Housing Investment Partnership OHIP • Rochdale Housing Initiative • NHS Oldham • NHS Heywood, Middleton and Rochdale • AWARM AWARM referral form • Rochdale Development Agency

Page 127 This page is intentionally left blank

Page 128 Agenda Item 19

REPORT FOR INFORMATION

Agenda item no:

Township Committees May 2012

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. The amount of Section 106 monies held at the end of the financial year 2011/12.

3. Suggested arrangements for greater engagement with the Township Committees over the future allocation and spending of monies Suggestions for the matching of projects and proposals to future resources will form the basis of further engagement with relevant Townships.

1. It is recommended that Members: 1.1 Note the completion of work to identify the scale of income received by the Council from planning obligations as of 1 April 2012 1.2 Note the ongoing implementation of new procedures within Planning and Finance Services to support closer monitoring and spending of income from planning permissions

1.3 Note the intention to present further reports to Townships in respect of open space confirming resources and allocation of spend within each Township, and to enabling future contributions from developments within each Township area to be more closely aligned with Township priorities, where possible.

Page 129 1.4 Express satisfaction with the work to date on planning obligations, whilst recognising further work is now required to allocate resources and align spending with local Township priorities.

2. Reasons for recommendation: 2.1 This report provides a further update to Township Committees of the ongoing introduction of improved processes within the Planning service to monitor and track spending of any resources secured to the Council arising from the granting of planning permissions. This is often referred to as ‘planning gain’ and may be received either through the completion of a legal agreement between a developer and the Council, or by way of an up front commuted sum payment to comply with planning polices and to mitigate the impact of development prior to the issue of the planning permission.

2.2 The first stage of this work was to confirm the scale of historic resources as of 1 April 2011. This formed the basis of a report to Township in May last year. The purpose of this report is to provide a further update to Members on the scale of resources held as of 1 April 2012, to confirm the scale of income received during the last financial year 2011/12. The most significant portion of resources held relates to recreational open space where monies will, where appropriate and backed by policy, be broken down into Township budgets for local project allocation and spend. The scale of resources for the provision and maintenance of recreational open space held within each Township was being verified by Finance at the time of report preparation. This will be reported orally to your meeting.

3. Alternatives and risks considered: 3.1 To not set out detailed procedures in respect of these matters lead to a less organised system where it has not previously 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 is now in place providing greater certainty and clarity to developers, Officers and elected members as to the scale of 106 resources held and its subsequent effective management. 3.2 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 provides written evidence as to how any monies paid have been spent. If unmanaged, there is a danger where spending does not occur within the terms or timescale of any 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.

5 Main text of report:

Page 130 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, including Metrolink, educational facilities, public realm and off site landscaping. To maximise the planning gain of development, the Planning Service is also using development to lever match funding of other capital programmes across the Borough such as the Priority Investment Fund, Connect 2 and the Middleton and Edgar Wood Townscape Heritage Initiative. Increasing the number of transactions made requires closer accounting and scrutiny of these payments made.

Future procedures and monitoring arrangements 5.4 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 2009, in excess of £5m of private sector investment has already been negotiated within legal agreements tied to major development applications, 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.

Page 131 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. As an example of this proactive approach, Members will however note that over £400,000 of recreational open space monies were secured by the Service during 2011/12, from a combination of both large and small development proposals.

Recreational Open Space Payments 5.5 In accordance with the terms of the Council’s adopted planning policy, the recreational open space payments made by developers are split down into three; a contribution to formal sports provision which can be spent anywhere in the Borough; a contribution to local open space which can only be spent within the Township where the development takes place; and an administration charge of 4% which is put towards the staff costs of administering and monitoring contributions. 5.6 In 2011/12 the Council received a total of £405,069.56 as contributions towards recreational open space. Added to the £749,657.31 held prior to 2011/12, and notwithstanding any spend in this financial year, the Council therefore has a significant S106 resource in respect of recreational open space. The scale of resource held by each Township and boroughwide is currently being verified by Finance and will be reported to Members verbally at the meeting. The total spent in 2011/12 will also be reported. 5.7 It can be confirmed that a total of £8160.84 was received as admin charges in 2011/12. This does not equate to 4% of the total as many of the larger contributions have been received through S106 agreements which were signed before the admin charge was introduced. 5.8 Some of the resource is ring fenced to specific projects in accordance with the terms of a S106 agreement. In particular , £69,174.72 of the Rochdale Township resource is allocated specifically to public realm improvements around the Metrolink stop at Kingsway, with further payments in respect of this still to be received.

Affordable Housing 5.9 In respect of affordable housing, the Council’s adopted planning policy and preferred approach is for the delivery of affordable housing on site as part of the development. The precise value of this on site contribution has not been quantified but will be considerable. Members are also advised that, in the current climate, and also as a means of securing public sector finance to kick start development on site, most of the major house builders prefer to provide on site affordable units as part of the first phase of development. 5.10 The Council can expect to receive an off site contribution from development in limited circumstances. However, where this is secured within agreements, in accordance with policy this permits a strategic Borough wide spend to meet that contribution and housing needs. The Council currently has £215,000

Page 132 available to spend on off site affordable housing schemes from developer contributions.

Education 5.11 The Council currently holds a contribution of £150,000 for the provision of primary education facilities within the Pennine Township from the Birch Hill Hospital residential development at Wardle. This contribution was received very recently and has yet to be allocated to any expenditure. Work will now take place with Schools Service to identify its suitable spend.

Highways 5.12 The Council does not currently hold any unspent S106 contributions for highways infrastructure or other improvements. No monies were received in 2011-12 and all previously held monies have been spent. The latter is not surprising as much of the highway impacts of development are ‘up front’ and any highway infrastructure improvements may need to be implemented as part of the development safely commencing. Unlike other types of developer contribution therefore the expectation is for this contribution to be spent largely upon receipt as it will directly relate to the development proceeding.

Engagement with the Township Committees 5.13 In respect of local open space improvements, there is a recognised deficiency of recreational open space across the Borough. As a consequence, any new housing development (excluding any like for like replacement dwelling) is required to make a financial contribution to meet this deficiency. At the present time the current policy, and in some cases the precise legal agreement, may not define the actual purpose of any contribution. Members are however advised this is likely to change and the Council may be required in future to identify the relevant open space project or deficiency for any spend within any agreement. Members are also advised the potential replacement of Section 106 agreements with the Community Infrastructure Levy will have implications in this area. It is therefore increasingly important, both to support Officers and to meet developer expectations that the Council is able to properly relate any future open space contributions it receives to actual local and strategic Borough wide deficiencies and projects. 5.14 There is therefore an opportunity here to agree local projects for open space and play improvements within each of the Townships. Members will be aware from previous reports of the work taking place to develop a Green Infrastructure Plan for each of the four Township areas.

5.15 The Heywood Green Infrastructure Action Plan was approved in September 2010 and the Middleton Plan was approved January 2012. The Pennines plan is currently out for public consultation until 25 May and will be brought before the Pennines Township Committee for approval in July 2012. The Rochdale Green Infrastructure Action Plan is currently in development. A draft for public consultation will be brought before the Rochdale Township Committee in September 2012. The final document will be brought before the January 2013 Township committee for approval.

Page 133 5.16 It is proposed the work on Green Infrastructure is now used to develop a set of strategic recreational open space objectives, together with any smaller scale projects or priorities. This work has identified a number of strategic projects within each completed Township plan, which provide the framework for delivering green infrastructure improvements. These are outlined below:

Heywood The Roch Valley River Park: Highlighting strategic opportunities to enhance the Roch Valley as a recreational, tourism and biodiversity corridor and to maximise its value for flood risk management. Heywood Greenways Network: creating and promoting a network of greener streets and connected green spaces to increase opportunities for recreation, access to the countryside, greener travel and healthier lifestyles. Living Neighbourhoods: Maximising the value of neighbourhood green space including increasing biodiversity, local food growing, education and natural play. Greener Gateways and Corridors: Improving the image and environmental quality of road and rail gateways and corridors.

Middleton Middleton Greenways Network: Improving accessibility by providing wider links to the countryside from the urban areas and improving walking and cycling access to services, employment and schools. Growing, Greener Neighbourhoods: Improve the range of services, products and functions that are provided by the green infrastructure in Middleton particularly climate change adaptation, flood risk management, local food growing and enhancing biodiversity. Middleton’s Countryside: Improving the quality and green infrastructure functions provided by key landscapes to support tourism and leisure along with good management of landscape heritage. Mills Hill to Middleton Town Centre Corridor: A framework for improvements to green infrastructure as part of any development proposals to ensure that flood risk management, access and biodiversity are maintained and enhanced.

Pennines: Pennines Greenways Network: Providing green links to the countryside and local services, particularly within urban areas along with coordinating and improving the access network to provide clear links and routes to key tourism, leisure and countryside destinations. Growing Greener Neighbourhoods: Increasing the range of services and functions provided by green infrastructure particularly for flood risk management, increasing biodiversity and improving health and well-being. Visit Pennines: Widening the township’s visitor offer by improving and enhancing gateways to key attractions and promoting alternative ways of arriving in and travelling within the Township, such as exploiting the Metrolink and National Cycle Route 66. Roch Valley River Park: Creating a strategic environmental corridor through the core of Rochdale Borough with an accessible network of landscape and visitor destinations.

Rochdale: This Plan is still in development but accessibility to high quality open space and the wider countryside from urban neighbourhoods particularly utilising the river valley networks, climate change adaptations, flood risk management,

Page 134 biodiversity enhancements and continuing the development of the strategic Roch Valley River Park through the township are emerging priorities.

5.17 It is proposed to bring a further report to each Township Committee in July 2012 setting out the current level of local open space resource available within that Township, alongside a draft list of local open space projects for Members consideration. 5.18 In the meantime, Members are invited to suggest specific schemes which can form the basis of that list for subsequent approval. 5.19 It is noted that Heywood Members have already agreed a set of local open space projects within the Township for the allocation of existing and planned resources, and that work to implement these schemes is now taking place. 5.20 Once a set of priorities has been endorsed by Members for each Township, this will be used by Officers to identify how existing unspent monies might be utilised. It will also support Officers in negotiations on future planning applications to align emerging development proposals requiring open space provision with the Township priority projects. Once this process is operational it is hoped this reporting may be extended to cover other types of developer contribution, or through the implementation of the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL).

Pooling of Section 106 income with other funding sources 5.21 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 the Priority Investment Fund, Heritage Lottery or Transport Funding. Whilst public sector funding is significantly reduced, match funding of developer contributions secured can also be used to support external funding bids. Members are advised the Planning service is attempting to take a wider and holistic view of development opportunities to link projects and sources of funding. To further support this proactive approach, 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 capital spending programmes.

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

7. Financial Implications: 7.1 The costs of the accounting and monitoring of spend from planning agreements is being met from income from a 4% admin charge levied on developer contributions. In 2011/12 this amounted to a contribution of £8160.84. This does not equate to 4% of the total amount of S106 monies received as many of the larger schemes currently coming forward had S106 agreements completed before the admin charge was introduced.

Page 135 7.2 Since the decision to impose an admin charge was taken, more recent national guidance is encouraging all authorities to adopt this approach to support closer auditing of income and spending. The Service is considering whether to increase the admin charge to 5% to bring it into line with other Greater Manchester authorities.

8. Conclusions: 8.1 Members are requested to note the work undertaken to establish the scale of Section 106 resources currently held across the Council and the intention to work closely with Township Committees in the coming months to identify a set of proposals for the allocation of resources held for the provision and maintenance of recreational open space within each Township.

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 136 Agenda Item 20

REPORT FOR INFORMATION

Agenda item no:

Township Committees May 2012

Report of the Service Director Planning and Regulation Services

National Planning Policy Framework and Neighbourhood Planning

Wards affected: All Report Author: Mark Robinson

Telephone: (01706) 924308

1. It is recommended that:

1.1 Members note some of the key changes made with immediate effect to the planning system following the publication of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and the Neighbourhood Planning Regulations.

1.2 Members note the intention to bring further reports and/or training to inform Members of their role in the emerging revised planning system. This will include a review of the Planning Code of Conduct.

2. Reasons for recommendation:

2.1 The Department for Communities and Local Government published the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) on 27 March 2012. The NPPF set out the Government’s planning policies for England and how these are expected to be applied. With immediate effect it replaces 44 documents including Planning Policy Statements; Planning Policy Guidance; Minerals Policy Statements; Minerals Policy Guidance; Circulars; and various letters to Chief Planning Officers. The NPPF has immediate implications for plan making and for the determination of planning applications.

2.2 The final version of the NPPF follows a draft NPPF document published by government in the autumn of 2011. At that time, Planning authorities were informed to afford the draft NPPF material weight in determining planning applications. As a consequence, reports were presented to Members of the Townships Planning Sub Committees and Licensing and Regulatory Committee setting out the implications to the Council of the draft NPPF in assessing

1

Page 137 development applications in the intervening period. Members requested to be kept informed of any changes being made to the Planning Framework and to receive further reports.

2.3 On 6 April 2012, the Neighbourhood Planning (General) Regulations 2012 also came into effect. These set out the ability for communities to bring forward neighbourhood plans setting out development for their areas, and the role of the Council in supporting communities wishing to submit plans through this process.

3. Alternatives considered:

3.1 The publication of the NPPF has immediate implications for plan making and for the determination of planning applications as outlined later in this report. The provisions of the NPPF are to be applied with immediate effect although a transitional period is provided whereby planning decisions may continue to be made against local planning policies adopted by the Council in the current Unitary Development Plan. (UDP) However, this weight is limited and where there is conflict between the NPPF and the UDP, the provisions of the NPPF will carry the greater weight and ought to be followed.

4. Consultation undertaken/proposed:

4.1 There are no specific issues arising from this particular report. Consultation on the draft NPPF was undertaken by central government during 2011 and some changes have been made within the final version of the NPPF.

5. Main text of report:

5.1 Since its came to power, the Coalition government committed to making sweeping changes to the planning system. A number of legislative changes have been made in the last eighteen months with the aim of decentralising decision making to local authorities and their communities, and to streamline the system of planning decision making as part of its Localism agenda.

5.2 Given the scale of reform, the purpose of this report is merely to provide an overview for Members of some of the major changes. Further reports or guidance to Members on any legal implications will be provided.

National Planning Policy Framework

5.3 Members will be aware from national media coverage the government published a revised set of planning policy guidance, the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) on 27 March 2012. The NPPF set out the Government’s planning policies for England and how these are expected to be applied. With immediate effect it replaces 44 documents including Planning Policy Statements; Planning Policy Guidance; Minerals Policy Statements; Minerals Policy Guidance; Circulars; and various letters to Chief Planning Officers. The NPPF has immediate implications for plan making and for the determination of planning applications.

2

Page 138

5.4 The NPPF condenses over a thousand pages of national planning policy guidance into a single document of 59 pages. That said, the Framework largely carries forward existing planning policies and protections, such as Green Belt and heritage in a streamlined form. The aim is to provide a framework, rather than detailed or prescriptive policies, from which local authorities and their communities can produce distinctive local and neighbourhood plans or strategies which reflect their local needs and priorities. Given the scale of guidance cancelled or revoked by the NPPF, the implications of this for the planning system both locally and nationally are still being evaluated. Further guidance will emerge and, where relevant, will be reported to Members.

5.5 The final version of the NPPF emphasises the government commitment to “ensuring that the planning system does everything it can to promote sustainable economic growth.” The headline is a presumption in favour of sustainable development (largely in place before). Sustainable development is loosely defined as that which is in accordance with the general thrust of the whole document. However, three dimensions to sustainable development are highlighted, namely economic, social and environmental factors. These are summarised as follows:

Economic role – allocating sufficient and suitable land at the right time to meet development needs, coordinating development and infrastructure delivery;

Social role – supporting strong, vibrant and healthy communities, meeting housing needs, securing high quality and accessible new development, improving access to services and supporting health and well being;

Environmental role – protecting the natural, built and historic environment, improving biodiversity, minimising waste and pollution, mitigating and adapting to climate change and moving to a low carbon economy.

The NPPF makes clear that sustainable development should be approved without delay, including in cases where a development plan is absent or silent.

Implementation arrangements of the NPPF

5.6 A twelve month transitional period until 31 st March 2013 has been introduced to guide decision taking and for the purposes of plan making.

Decision taking

5.7 The presumption that planning decisions are taken in accordance with an adopted development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise, remains in force. In Rochdale Borough, this requires decisions be taken in accordance with the adopted Rochdale Unitary Development Plan (UDP), unless material considerations such as the publication of national guidance or appeal decisions suggest otherwise.

5.8 For the purposes of decision taking, policies within the UDP or any of its Supplementary Guidance Documents and Supplementary Planning Documents,

3

Page 139 should not be considered out of date simply because they pre date the publication of the NPPF. However, guidance within the NPPF can be regarded as a material consideration with immediate effect and the weight to be given to this will depend on the degree of conflict between the adopted UDP policy and the new NPPF.

5.9 For example, in cases where there is a limited degree of conflict between the UDP and the NPPF, regard could be paid to the UDP policy during this transitional period. However, in cases where there is a significant degree of conflict, the NPPF is likely to carry greater weight on appeal.

5.10 Developers may choose to argue strongly during the transitional period that any NPPF guidance should override any adopted UDP policies on the same subject. Nationally, an increase in planning appeals is predicted as arguments take place as to what the guidance really means where it is non-prescriptive or short on detail. It is perhaps too early to predict the implications of this in terms of speculative development proposals within the Borough. However, this is no different to the previous situation where the Council has supported development proposals taking account of more recent national planning guidance which superseded any adopted UDP policies at the point of determination. The Council has sought to support development which supports economic growth in recent years, in cases where there are otherwise no overriding planning objections to the development.

Plan Making

5.11 The Framework must also be taken into account in the preparation of plans. Plans may therefore need to be revised and this should be progressed as quickly as possible, either through a partial review of a recently adopted plan, or by preparing a new one, in this case the Core Strategy.

5.12 The NPPF therefore requires the Council works toward the adoption of the Core Strategy, taking account of NPPF policies, within the next twelve months. Failure to complete this work within the twelve month period would not mean a UDP policy cannot form the basis of a planning decision, provided it was in conformity with the NPPF. Otherwise, the NPPF guidance takes precedent.

Preparation of Core Strategy

5.13 The above guidance has implications for the preparation of the Council’s Core Strategy. The Council’s Unitary Development Plan was adopted in June 2006 and will be replaced by the Core Strategy.

5.14 In March 2011 the Council submitted its draft Core Strategy (CS) to Government. Following his initial review, the appointed Planning Inspector expressed some concerns regarding the proposal to release land from the Green Belt for employment and housing development south of Heywood. Following a public Exploratory Meeting, the Inspector maintained his original concerns about the release of Green Belt for development, stating that there is a strong risk to the Council that, on the basis of all the evidence submitted, the proposals would be found unsound.

4

Page 140 5.15 The Council has subsequently reviewed its position and resolved to seek a formal direction from the Secretary of State to withdraw the Core Strategy with a view to preparing a revised Core Strategy, taking account of the Inspector’s concerns along with the provisions of the NPPF and revised plan making guidance, as soon as possible for consultation. A formal response from the Secretary of State to the Council’s request is awaited at the time of writing.

5.16 It will not be statutorily possible due to plan making timescales and the need for an Examination in Public to adopt the Core Strategy within the twelve month transitional period. This will not mean the currently adopted UDP is irrelevant where its policies accord with the NPPF. However, where its policies are in conflict with the NPPF, no reliance on the UDP can be made.

Duty to Co operate

5.17 In terms of consultation requirements, the NPPF emphasises the importance of planning strategically across boundaries through the Duty to Co operate. This duty applies to a number of public bodies including local planning authorities and requires collaborative working across boundaries to ensure that strategic priorities are properly coordinated and reflected in Local Plans. The Council will be expected to demonstrate evidence of having effectively collaborated with adjoining districts on the production of its Core Strategy when it is submitted for examination. Members will be aware there is currently significant cross boundary working, particularly though AGMA, relating to flood risk, green infrastructure, transport and housing. However, to satisfy the requirements in NPPF this work will need to be evidenced more clearly. Rochdale Borough will also need to engage more with the adjoining non-AGMA districts of Rossendale and Calderdale.

Localism and Planning

5.18 The Coalition Government proposes to decentralise power as part of its localism agenda, returning decision making to local councils who are responsive to the needs of their areas, and giving local communities control over housing and planning decisions. Whilst much detail remains to be issued, it is clear from changes outlined so far the Government is committed to streamlining and speeding up the planning system and taking forward the principles of Localism and the Big Society.

The Government’s stated intentions through the Localism Act are to:

• Empower local people; • Free local government from central and regional controls; • Give local communities a real share in local growth; and • Make the local planning system more efficient and more ‘local’.

5.19 The following gives an indication of the key changes identified in the Act to improve the planning system and to take forward the principles of Localism and

5

Page 141 the Big Society. In addition, a commentary on the implications for the Borough is provided.

The Local and Neighbourhood Planning System

5.20 The NPPF and Neighbourhood Planning Regulations 2012 propose a new local planning system which introduces the right for communities to prepare their own Neighbourhood Plans . Neighbourhood plans have been introduced to help deliver growth and to ensure communities have a say on what is needed and to ensure growth benefits the local community. There will not be a statutory duty to prepare Neighbourhood Plans – but there will be a right to do so (i.e. a ‘right to plan’).

5.21 The Local Development Framework (incorporating the Core Strategy) remains at the heart of the system with no repeal of the statutory primacy of the plan (although the procedures might be simplified). Development plan documents will be needed to provide the framework for the new Neighbourhood Plans.

5.22 To be approved by the Council, Neighbourhood Plans will need to conform with the local plan/Local Development Framework, the NPPF guidance, any neighbouring neighbourhood plan, European obligations and human rights. Although they will be allowed to accommodate more housing or infrastructure than proposed by the Council’s development plan, crucially a Neighbourhood Plan will not be able to provide for less development than that set out in the Council’s development plan for the same area.

5.23 The Government is keen for Council’s to complete their Core Strategies and other vital Development Plan Documents in order to provide the ‘Local Plan’ framework for Neighbourhood Plans. Site allocations development plan documents may be necessary to provide district wide guidance on sites to ensure housing delivery and to support developer contributions, and provide certainty for developers, landowners and residents. Clearly, Neighbourhood Plans can include allocations within a neighbourhood area but it is unlikely that neighbourhood plans will provide complete coverage of an authority’s area and therefore the allocation/protection of sites for development borough-wide will require LDF documents.

5.24 Neighbourhood Plans will be spatial plans and relate to land use planning but they will be able to go further than a development plan documents by dealing with matters such as traffic calming, environmental improvements, community based initiatives, etc.

Neighbourhood Forums

5.25 A neigbourhood forum is a group which the Council designates to handle the preparation of a neighbourhood plan for an area. Neighbourhood Plans can be prepared by Town or Parish Councils or Neighbourhood Forums which are established by the local community, have a formal constitution and have a designated neighbourhood area agreed with the local authority. To be capable of being accepted, a Neighbourhood Forum should have at least three residents as members and be open to all residents.

6

Page 142 Neighbourhood Areas

5.26 Councils are not expected to identify neighbourhood areas for the purposes of designating Neighbourhood Forums and establishing Neighbourhood Plans. Instead the Council is expected to respond to applications, to ensure Neighbourhood Areas do not overlap and to resolve matters where more than one neighbourhood forum comes forward to prepare a plan for the same neighbourhood area. It is not clear yet what constitutes a ‘neighbourhood’.

Neighbourhood Plans

5.27 Once work begins by the community group(s), the Council must provide assistance and support. This includes technical support and the arranging, and holding, of the independent examination and referendum (see below). It is not entirely clear whether those preparing a plan, or the Local Planning Authority, will be required to consult on it. It is unclear how such work will be resourced as the costs of preparing a plan, which may be considerable, will fall to the local community. It is also unclear how Councils will be resourced to support this work.

5.28 Neighbourhood Plans will need to undergo an independent examination, checking whether the Neighbourhood Plan aligns with:

• The strategic content of the Core Strategy / Local Plan; • The national planning policy framework or other national guidance; • European Directives; • National and international Designations; and • Neighbouring neighbourhood Plans.

5.29 Indications are that the examination will be ‘light touch’ and subject to passing the independent examination, the plan will be put to a local referendum and will be approved if more than 50% of those voting do vote for it. If the referendum is positive, the Council will have to adopt it but again only where the plan is in conformity with the Council’s development plan for that area.

5.30 It is intended that the Local Plan / Core Strategy will take on the strategic role and will contain housing numbers, strategic infrastructure etc. (through the Core Strategy, Allocations Plan or other DPDs). The Neighbourhood Plan will have to accommodate these strategic proposals – and can accommodate more if they want to (but not less – e.g. less housing than is specified in the Local Plan/Core Strategy).

5.31 In terms of managing Neighbourhood Plans within the Borough, in the event of any community groups coming forward to prepare their own plans, Townships could take a lead role in working with communities, to agree which neighbourhoods should have one, boundaries of any neigbourhood, timescale for plan preparation, priority areas etc, and the identification, where possible of any budgets / resources to support this work.

7

Page 143 Neighbourhood Development Orders

5.32 Neighbourhood Forums (potentially very small groups of people) may also designate areas where Neighbourhood Development Orders will apply. These are areas where certain types of development will no longer require permission or where different planning rules will apply, including the granting of outline permission subject to conditions to be approved by the Council. Where a scheme is brought forward by a community group itself, e.g. for a small-scale site specific development without the need for a separate planning application the group may seek a ‘community right to build’ . This would see the appointment of a developer and might include new homes, businesses and shops. The benefits of the development, for example, profits made from letting the homes, will stay within the community. This too will be subject to a referendum but an authority can refuse to accept it, if it is contrary to the local strategic policy framework and certain environmental designations.

Revocation of Regional Spatial Strategies

5.33 An announcement in June 2010 confirmed these are to be abolished with immediate effect and should not carry material weight in planning decisions. This is intended to return decision making powers on planning and housing to local councils, making local spatial plans the basis for planning decisions, and removing housing targets. The Communities and Local Government Select Committee has since decided to undertake an inquiry into the revocation and abolition of RSS. The Ministerial statement to abolish RSS has already been challenged in the High Court by house builders but it remains the government’s stated intention to abolish this during 2012. However, until it is finally revoked, it remains part of the development plan and has significant weight, particularly in relation to housing targets. This has implications for the target rates for new house building within the Borough.

Abolition of the Infrastructure Planning Commission

5.34 The recently established Infrastructure Planning Commission, set up to deal with developments of national significance which it was felt would be dealt with more speedily outside of local authority control, is to be absorbed into a Major Infrastructure Planning Unit within the Planning Inspectorate. It is intended to create a democratically accountable system that provides a fast track process for major infrastructure projects through the Localism Bill. A local authority within whose areas the development could take place, the ‘host authority’, will be consulted as a statutory consultee but will not be the decision maker. Such developments within the Borough include the proposed expansion of Scout Moor Wind Farm.

Enforcement powers

5.35 It is proposed that powers to take enforcement action under the Planning Acts will be strengthened. In particular, the planning system is to be tightened to avoid abuse of the system and the delaying of time periods for compliance. This will prevent the submission of a later planning application in circumstances where the

8

Page 144 Council has already served an enforcement notice i.e. resolved the unauthorised development to be unacceptable. Further guidance on these issues is awaited.

Free Schools

5.36 New powers are proposed to help save local facilities and services threatened with closure, and to enable communities to take over local state run services. As an example, to make it easier for the promoters of free schools to build new premises or find and adapt suitable buildings. Consultation has been undertaken on changes to planning legislation to make it easier for buildings in other uses to be converted to schools without the need for planning permission. A final announcement on planning legislation is expected shortly.

Communities Right to Build Scheme

5.37 The Coalition has announced plans to give rural communities a Right to Build, under which they would come together to approve plans for new homes, shops or community facilities. Under these proposals, community organisations would have the freedom to give the green light to local developments without a specific application for planning permission, as long as there is overwhelming local support for the proposal by referendum. Communities could either act as developer or employ a developer to act on their behalf. The Council would check the development to ensure it met minimum criteria and sustainability standards but would have no control over design. It could not intervene where a development did not accord with its own planning policies or objectives.

5.38 Whilst this proposal is targeted at rural areas there is no reason to suggest the scope of this could not be widened. The ability of communities to identify or fund sites is questioned. The role of authorities in identifying sites and in securing necessary infrastructure, or using existing Section 106 resources to support development remains to be determined.

Community consultation on large planning applications

5.39 The Bill includes provision obliging prospective developers to consult with local communities prior to submitting any large scale development proposal. In terms of scale, this will affect very few planning applications as the threshold for most schemes will not be exceeded. The first application which may be affected by this requirement will be a refreshed planning permission for the Kingsway Business Park. However, the Council has already adopted pre application guidance setting out how, and when, it would expect developers to engage with local communities. This can already be used by developers for any proposals, regardless of whether consultation is now required by law.

6. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

6.1 There are no specific financial implications arising from this report. However, any financial implications for the operation of the new planning framework will be reported to Committees as appropriate.

9

Page 145 7. LEGAL IMPLICATIONS

7.1 There will be legal implications for the Council through the transitional arrangements from the current to the new planning framework and the role of the Council in the new planning framework both in terms of determining planning applications, plan making and through its support of community groups in supporting neighbourhood plans or other development strategies. Again, the implications of this for the Council will be reported to Members of appropriate Committee and highlighted where relevant.

8 CONCLUSIONS

8.1 Whilst the government is making fundamental changes to the framework of the planning system, to decentralize decision making and increase community involvement, much of the provisions remain as before. Protections such as Green Belt and heritage remain and the presumption that planning permission be granted for development which accords with local and national planning guidance is retained. More detail will emerge throughout the year but CLG estimates it will be around eighteen months before the new system becomes operative and the Regulations and Guidance to support this are fully in place.

8.2 The planning system has been simplified rather than overhauled. It is hoped this will make it easier to work with local communities to deliver what is needed so that neighbourhoods don’t see plans being imposed on them by the local planning authority. The intention to empower local people, free Councils from central government and regional controls, give communities a real share in growth and create a more efficient and more ‘local’ planning system is to be welcomed. However, the precise detail of how this will operate, and what resources will be available to support local communities in preparing their own plans is unclear.

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 on 01706 924308 or email [email protected]

Peter Rowlinson Service Director Planning and Regulation Services

10

Page 146