DOCSLIB.ORG

Subject: HGV Restrictions in the Smithy Bridge Area. Status: for Publication Report To: Pennine Township Committee Date: 6Th N

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Subject: HGV Restrictions in the Smithy Bridge Area. Status: for Publication Report To: Pennine Township Committee Date: 6Th N Subject: HGV Restrictions in the Smithy Status: For Publication Bridge area. Report to : Pennine Township Committee Date: 6th November 2012 Report of: Service Director – Corporate Services Author Email: [email protected] Author: Chris Woods Tel: 01706 924581 Comments from Section 151 Officer Statutory Officers: Monitoring Officer Key Decision: No Forward Plan General Exception Special Urgency 1. PURPOSE OF REPORT 1.1 To discuss the implications of restricting access for large goods vehicles to the Smithy Bridge area. Specifically Wildhouse Lane, Hollingworth Road and Smithy Bridge Road. A plan is attached in Appendix 1 for reference. 2. RECOMMENDATIONS 2.1 Members note the report and decide whether further work should be undertaken in relation to the information provided in this report. MAIN TEXT INCLUDING ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED/ CONSULTATION CARRIED OUT 3.1 It has been noted that there is a small group of residents from the Smithy Bridge area who are concerned about the use of local roads by large goods vehicles. Residents met Councillors and Highways Officers to discuss their concerns on 20 August 2012. 3.2 For the purpose of this report a Large Goods Vehicle (LGV) is a vehicle designed and constructed to transport goods and has a gross vehicle weight greater than 7.5Tonnes. 3.3 Vehicles greater than 7.5T are generally those with 3 and more axles. Such a restriction would not prohibit large vans and some rigid two axle lorries, which often weigh less than 7.5T. 3.4 The public highway is designed and maintained for the safe passage of people and goods. 3.5 The route in question comprises of Wildhouse Lane, Milnrow Road, Smithy Bridge Road, Lake Bank and Hollingworth Road is public highway and forms part of the B6225. Classified roads such as the B6225 are where Rochdale Council as Highway Authority expect goods vehicles to travel. 3.6 Smithy Bridge Road, Lake Bank and Hollingworth Road provides a diversion route for vehicles greater in height than 13’ 3’’ needing to travel between east Rochdale and Halifax and are prevented by the Littleborough Railway Viaduct. 3.7 Consideration should be given to businesses that require access to Blackstone Edge Old Road using LGV’s, in contacting the companies with the details provided by residents, Highways have established that one haulage company is based in Littleborough but requires access to Blackstone Edge, however they can not use the low bridge meaning they are required to use Smithy Bridge Road and another company is based in Littleborough and has customers in Milnrow centre meaning the quickest route in terms of fuel and time is over Wildhouse Lane. 3.8 To restrict vehicles over 7.5T from using Wildhouse Lane, Hollingworth Road and Smithy Bridge Road would require a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO), the only appropriate TRO available to the Council to control LGV’s using Wildhouse Lane, Hollingworth Road and Smithy Bridge Road is the ‘Prohibition of Goods Vehicles’ which can be used to restrict vehicles over 7.5T. Cost 3.9 In order for the Council to start the process of introducing a TRO the Council would need strong justification for the reasons as to why the TRO is being introduced. 3.10 In order to accurately assess the number and type of vehicles using the Smithy Bridge Road area, the Council would be required to undertake a comprehensive series of traffic surveys. • Tube surveys; to first determine the volume of all categories of vehicles. • An origin and destination survey; to determine numbers of vehicles entering and leaving the proposed TRO zone and the amount of time spent within the zone. • An interview survey of goods vehicle drivers to determine original origin and final destination. 3.11 The above surveys would provide the Council with the appropriate information to either justify or not the introduction of a TRO for the ‘Prohibition of Goods Vehicles’. The approximate cost of completing the surveys is £40,000.00 3.12 After the surveys are complete and the results would be reported to Township Committee with a recommendation. Additional funds would need to be sought if there is a resolution to support a TRO for the ‘Prohibition of Goods Vehicles’. 3.13 Prior to promoting any TRO the Council is legally obliged to consult with statutory consultees; • Manchester Fire & Rescue • North West Ambulance Service • Greater Manchester Police • Transport for Greater Manchester • Freight Transport Association • Road Haulage Association 3.14 The Council would expect to receive strong objections from the Freight Transport Association and the Road Haulage Association. 3.15 Should a TRO be advertised we also expect strong objections from local businesses that rely on LGV’s for deliveries. 3.16 Accident statistics for the area show that there have been no recorded incidents involving LGV’s. Alternatives considered 3.17 The ‘Prohibition of Goods Vehicles’ TRO could be extended to ‘Except for access’ in this instance LGV’s could still access the area providing there was a reason for access. 3.18 This TRO is more difficult to enforce due to the fact that a Police Officer would need to observe a LGV entering the zone and then check whether or not the LGV stops to access a property or drives straight through the zone. Consultation proposed/undertaken 3.19 Highways & Engineering have sought the views of Greater Manchester Police on the feasibility of potentially raising a TRO of this nature in this area and they commented as follows; “In general terms GMP do not support the introduction of environmental weight limits where no physical measures are provided to make the restriction self enforcing. There is ample evidence of such schemes failing to persuade drivers of these types of vehicles not to use the restricted roads. GMP will concentrate enforcement activity where we can have the greatest effect in reducing casualty rates. In this proposal there are no recorded injury collisions and therefore the scheme is environmental only. In looking at this individual proposal, due to the height restriction on the A58 in Littleborough the proposal would effectively sever the roads to Todmorden, Halifax & beyond. It would not be possible for these vehicles to be allowed 'except for access' as they are not accessing premises on or adjacent to the proposed restricted roads. As they stand GMP would formally object to the proposals if they proceeded to formal consultation.” 3.20 Highways & Engineering have already spoken to the 3 haulage companies perceived to be using Wildhouse Lane, Smithy Bridge Road and Lake Bank to seek cooperation in not using the route. 3.21 The companies indicated that they use Wildhouse Lane and Smithy Bridge Road when the A58 is busy and because they have customers in the local area i.e. based in Littleborough and have customers in Milnrow. 4. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS 4.1 As discussed in paras 3.9 and 3.10 Pennine Township would need to allocate £40,000.00 to have the surveys completed to form an evidence base for potentially raising a TRO. 4.2 The Highways & Engineering Service is not able to fund the cost of the surveys from its existing budget provision. Should Members be minded to approve surveys and subsequently a Traffic Regulation Order then Pennine Township would need to provide the budget. 5. LEGAL IMPLICATIONS 5.1 If committee decide to approve surveys and consultation to take place the results of the surveys and consultation will be brought back to this committee for further consideration. 6. PERSONNEL IMPLICATIONS 6.1 None. 7. CORPORATE AND TOWNSHIP PRIORITIES 7.1 The Pennine Township Plan has set targets for the Township in the coming year. 7.2 One of the targets is to make improvements to local roads, reduce congestion and improve road safety. 8. RISK ASSESSMENT IMPLICATIONS 8.1 There are no specific risk issues for members to consider arising from this report. 9. EQUALITIES IMPACTS 9.1 Workforce Equality Impacts Assessment There are no (significant) workforce equality issues arising from this report. 9.2 Equality/Community Impact Assessments There are no (significant) equality/community issues arising from this report. Having considered the Equalities Impact Assessment, this report is principally for information purposes at this stage and as we are not statutory obliged to provide a HGV restriction or are we changing procedures or practices then an Equalities Impact Assessment is not required. There are no background papers. .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Smithy Bridge Road, Littleborough, OL15 8QF Offers Over: £200,000
    Smithy Bridge Road, Littleborough, OL15 8QF SUBSTANTIAL STONE BUILT END TERRACED | THREE BEDROOMS | LARGE GARAGE WHICH CAN HOUSE CARAVAN / MOBILE HOME | ADDITIONAL PRIVATE PARKING FOR SIX CARS LARGE REAR GARDEN | IDEALLY LOCATED FOR STATION AND LOCAL SCHOOLS | NO ONWARD CHAIN | EPC RATING C Offers Over: £200,000 Smithy Bridge Road, Littleborough, OL15 DINING AREA 8QF 4.08m (13' 5") x 3.58m (11' 9") This substantial, stone built end terraced property, which was originally two separate houses, provides spacious three bedroomed family accommodation, and enjoys a popular residential location close to local schools and Smithy Bridge railway station, with Hollingworth Lake Country Park just half a mile away. Features include the size of the reception rooms, the large double garage / workshop with it’s additional private parking, and the superb rear garden. Offered to the market with no onward chain, this property, in addition to being an ideal family home, would suit those looking to accommodate a caravan or mobile home within the garage or boundary of the property. LOUNGE KITCHEN AREA 4.63m (15' 2") x 6.63m (21' 9") 4.48m (14' 8") x 2.55m (8' 4") the spacious lounge, which has an entrance vestibule, has two windows and could be separated into two rooms if preferred. There is a wall mounted electric heater, and trapdoor access to a cellar. LANDING with storage cupboard. BEDROOM 1 4.63m (15' 2") x 4.08m (13' 5") DINING KITCHEN large double bedroom with dual aspect windows, large open plan dining kitchen, with the kitchen and fitted wardrobes. comprising of a range of fitted base and wall units incorporating a range style oven with five ring hob, integrated washing machine, stainless steel sink unit, tiled floor and complementary wall tiling, and a wall mounted gas fired central heating boiler.
    [Show full text]
  • Agenda Frontsheet 24/05/2011, 18.15
    Public Document Pack LEGAL & DEMOCRATIC SERVICES Linda Fisher Service Director COMMITTEE SERVICES SECTION PO Box 15, Town Hall, Rochdale OL16 1AB Telephone: Rochdale (01706) 647474 Fax: Rochdale (01706) 924705 www.rochdale.gov.uk To: All Members of Pennines Your Ref: Township Committee Our Ref: Enquiries to: Michael Garraway Extension: 4716 Date: 11 th May 2011 Dear Councillor PENNINES TOWNSHIP COMMITTEE You are requested to attend the meeting of Pennines Township Committee to be held in St. James Primary School, Crossfield Road, Wardle, Rochdale, OL12 9JW on Tuesday, 24 May 2011 commencing at 6.15 pm. The agenda and supporting papers are attached. If you require advice on any agenda item involving a possible Declaration of Interest which could affect your right to speak and/or vote, please contact staff in the Committee Services Section at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting. Yours faithfully Linda Fisher Service Director Pennines Township Committee Membership 2011/12 Councillor Jean Ashworth Councillor Martin Burke Councillor Robert Clegg Councillor Janet Darnbrough Councillor Irene Davidson Councillor Ashley Dearnley Councillor Peter Ernest Evans Councillor Aftab Hussain Councillor Andy Kelly Councillor Stephanie Mills Councillor Martin Eric Rodgers Councillor Ann Stott 1 ROCHDALE METROPOLITAN BOROUGH COUNCIL PENNINES TOWNSHIP COMMITTEE Tuesday, 24 May 2011 at 6.15 pm St. James Primary School, Crossfield Road, Wardle, Rochdale, OL12 9JW A G E N D A Apologies for Absence 1. Appointment of Chair 2011/12 2. Appointment of Vice - Chair 2011/12 3. Apologies for Absence 4. Declarations of Interest 5. OPEN FORUM (6.15 p.m. - 6.45 p.m.) 6.
    [Show full text]
  • Here Are Several Current Development Strategies in Place Across Littleborough and Smithybridge, Which Should Be Noted
    Littleborough Civic Trust Website - www.littleboroughcivictrust.co.uk Email - [email protected] www.facebook.com/littleborough.civictrust.33 Twitter - Littleborough Civic Trust@LittleboroughC5 Littleborough Civic Trust statement on planning matters The Littleborough Civic Trust, keeping the interests of local residents at heart, have drafted the following article. We hope to raise awareness of ongoing and upcoming plans for the villages we live in and how the LCT intends to fight alongside residents for a say over the direction of local developments. To begin it is worth mentioning the local greenbelt group “Smithy Bridge & Littleborough: Save the Greenbelt” have made significant leaps in raising awareness and engagement with residents and have noted significant appetite to fight the Greater Manchester Spatial Framework Plan. So, we hope this article is met with similar support. It is also worth note this article takes information from numerous sources to provide you with the most up-to-date and accurate statistics available, which will be cited if you so wish to read further. The intention is not to scaremonger and if that is the resultant effect we apologise in advance; however, this is the unfortunate scenario our village currently faces. There are several current development strategies in place across Littleborough and Smithybridge, which should be noted. For quick reference we have attached the number of homes suggested by each development plan: Greater Manchester Transport Strategy 2040 Executive summary Proposed major and minor developments 544+ Rochdale Rail Corridor Strategy 1845 The Greater Manchester Spatial Framework 510 When looking at ongoing/proposed development plans of the local area we first need to understand the local infrastructure challenges we are faced with.
    [Show full text]
  • Planning Applications Registered by the Council During Week Ending 30Th September 2016
    Economy Directorate Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council Number One Riverside, Smith Street Rochdale, OL16 1XU EMAIL: [email protected] Planning Applications Registered by the Council During Week Ending 30th September 2016 Application Ward Registered Application Decision Number Description Date Type Level 16/01180/DOC Balderstone And Kirkholt 29 September 2016 Approval of detail reserved by condition Delegated (subject to call up) PROPOSAL: Submission of details to comply with condition 3 on planning permission 16/00009/AM LOCATION: St Cuthberts Rc Business And Enterprise College Shaw Road Rochdale OL16 4RX APPLICANT: AGENT: Mr Michael Flinders frankshaw associates Penmore House Hasland Road Hasland Chesterfield Derbyshire S41 05J Case Officer: Ben Sandover ____________________________________________________________________________________ 16/01150/DOC Balderstone And Kirkholt 22 September 2016 Approval of detail reserved by condition Delegated (subject to call up) PROPOSAL: Submission of details to comply with condition 3 on planning permission 16/00325/FUL LOCATION: 16 The Strand Rochdale OL11 2JG APPLICANT: AGENT: Miss Maddi Mooney Triangle Architects Emma Carlin Great Places Housing Group Raven House 729 Princess Road 113 Fairfield Street Manchester Manchester M20 2LT M12 6EL United Kingdom Case Officer: Ben Sandover ____________________________________________________________________________________ Application Ward Registered Application Decision Number Description Date Type Level 16/01079/HOUS Balderstone
    [Show full text]
  • School Bus Services in Rochdale September 2020 to July 2021
    School Bus Services in Rochdale September 2020 to July 2021 Services in this leaflet operate on schooldays only, unless otherwise stated. Services are listed alphabetically under school names. - 1 - 11/09/20 The IGO Pass All students between the ages of 11 and 16 need an IGO pass if they wish to travel at the concessionary (reduced fare) rate on buses. The IGO pass is like an ID card and proves that the student is aged 16 or under. It must be carried on all journeys and shown to the driver before paying the fare. The IGO pass costs £10 and can only be bought by students who live, or go to school in Greater Manchester. More information on IGO and an application form to get an IGO pass is on the TfGM website at http://igo.tfgm.com (Please note: students who are entitled to a free Scholars Travel Pass for journeys between home and school and students aged between 16 and 19 who have a Scholars Concessionary Pass, do not need an IGO Pass for these journeys) - 2 - 11/09/20 TFGM SCHOOL BUS OPERATORS IN ROCHDALE: Services in this leaflet are arranged by TFGM Service Planning Department. BPT Burnley and Pendle, Queensgate Bus Depot, Tel: 0345 60 40 110 Colne Road, Burnley BB10 1HH FM First Manchester, Wallshaw Street, Oldham Tel: 0161 627 2929 OL1 3TR DIA Diamond Bus, Unit 22/23 Chanters Tel: 01942 888893 Industrial Estate, Atherton, Manchester M46 9BP GNW Go North West, Boyle Street, Cheetham, Tel: 0330 1234 121 Manchester M8 8UT RDT Rosso, Queensgate Bus Depot, Colne Road, Tel: 0345 60 40 110 Burnley BB10 1HH SM Stagecoach Manchester, Hyde Road,
    [Show full text]
  • Newsletter Number 6 - January 2020
    ROCHDALE FOOD BANK Affilliated to the Trusell Trust ( Charity Number 1172470 ) Newsletter Number 6 - January 2020 A brief word from the Editor. Welcome to our sixth Newsletter, which henceforth is to appear three times a year. It is hard to believe that it’s already twelve months since we were struggling with massive repairs to our main premises at South Parade and even harder to believe that just a few months ago our shelves were close to empty and we were having to use financial donations to buy in sufficient food supplies to meet the ever- increasing needs of our clients! What a difference a few months make. We are of course used to the bulk of our donations coming during the Autumn Harvest celebrations and the lead-up to Christmas, but in the latter stages of 2019 we witnessed an extraordinary degree of generosity from the people of Rochdale. I’ve dedicated this Newsletter to highlighting some of those individuals and organisations who have helped us so much but it’s worth setting out some overall figures. In October we received 8803 kilogrammes of food, in November 6601 kilos and in December a massive 16471 kilos. This latter figure compares with the 10459 kilos donated to us in December 2018, an increase of around 60 per cent. I’m not sure what the reasons for this huge increase are, but it may be that the publicity our Foodbank has received during the past year via the Rochdale Observer and Rochdale Online has certainly helped, as has the high-profile work of the Trussell Trust in highlighting food poverty across England.
    [Show full text]
  • (Public Pack)Agenda Document for Pennines Township Committee, 10
    Public Document Pack Resources Directorate David Wilcock Assistant Director (Legal, Governance & Workforce) Governance & Committee Services Floor 2, Number One Riverside, Smith Street, Rochdale, OL16 1XU Phone: 01706 647474 Website: www.rochdale.gov.uk To: All Members of the Pennines Township Enquiries to: Shahada Shahid Committee Email: [email protected] Telephone: 01706 924713 Date: 21st December 2016 Dear Councillor Pennines Township Committee You are requested to attend the meeting of the Pennines Township Committee to be held in Hollingworth B, Training and Conference Suite, First Floor, Number One Riverside, Smith Street, Rochdale, OL16 1XU on Tuesday, 10th January 2017 commencing at 6.15 pm. The agenda and supporting papers are attached. If you require advice on any agenda item involving a possible Declaration of Interest which could affect your right to speak and/or vote, please refer to the Code of Conduct or contact the Monitoring Officer or staff in the Governance and Committee Services Team at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting. Yours Faithfully David Wilcock Assistant Director (Legal, Governance & Workforce) Pennines Township Committee Membership 2016/17 Councillor John Blundell (Chair) Councillor Neil Butterworth Councillor Robert Clegg Councillor Ashley Dearnley Councillor Janet Emsley Councillor Irene Davidson Councillor John Hartley Councillor Aftab Hussain Councillor Andy Kelly Councillor Amna Mir Councillor Rina Paolucci-Escobar (Vice Chair) Councillor Ann Stott JP Rochdale Borough Council PENNINES TOWNSHIP COMMITTEE Tuesday, 10th January 2017 at 6.15 pm Hollingworth B, Training and Conference Suite, First Floor, Number One Riverside, Smith Street, Rochdale, OL16 1XU A G E N D A Apologies for Absence 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Local Government Boundary Commission for England Report No
    Local Government Boundary Commission For England Report No. 322 LOCAL GOVERNirfKHT BOUNDARY COAIMISSIOH FOR ENGLA1ID REPORT NO. LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND CHAIRMAN Sir Nicholas Morrison KGB DEPUTY CHAIRMAN Mr J M Rankin QC MEMBERS Lady Bowden Mr J T Brockbank Mr R R Thornton CB DL Mr D P Harrison PH To the Rt Hon Merlyn Rees, MP Secretary of State for the Home Department PROPOSALS FOR REVISED ELECTORAL ARRANGEMENTS FOR THE METROPOLITAN BOROUGH OF ROCHDALE 1. We, the Local Government Boundary Commission for England, having carried out our initial review of the electoral arrangements for the metropolitan borough of Rochdale in accordance with the requirements of section 63 of, and Schedule 9 to, the Local Government Act 1972, present our proposals for the future electoral arrangements for that borough. 2. In accordance with the procedure laid down in section 60(1) and (2) of the 1972 Act, notice was given on 28 August 1975 that we were to undertake this review. This was incorporated in a consultation letter addressed to the Rochdale Borough Council, copies of which were circulated to Greater Manchester County Council, the Members of Parliament for the constituencies concerned and the headquarters of the main political parties. Copies were also sent to the editors of local newspapers circulating in the area and of the local government press. Notices inserted in the local press announced the start of the review and invited comments from members of the public and from interested bodies. 3. Rochdale Borough Council were invited to prepare a draft scheme of representation for our consideration.
    [Show full text]
  • The Formation of a Community Rail Partnership for the Calder Valley Line
    Report to Cabinet Date of Meeting 30th March 2021 Portfolio A Thriving Economy Report Author Dawn Sexton Public Document The Formation of a Community Rail Partnership for the Calder Valley Line Executive Summary 1.1 Members of the Cabinet are asked to approve the formation of a Community Rail Partnership (CRP) for the Calder Valley Line, which would include all five of the borough’s railway stations along with seven railway stations in Calderdale. 1.2 CRP’s bring together local groups and partners along railway lines to work with the rail industry, and deliver a range of community engagement and promotional activities to encourage ownership and improve access to and use of local rail services. CRPs promote understanding of the importance of local railways, in terms of improving mobility and sustainable travel, community cohesion and wellbeing and social and economic development. 1.3 Officers from Rochdale and Calderdale Councils, in conjunction with Transport for Greater Manchester (TfGM) and the West Yorkshire Combined Authority (WYCA), have been working together on a proposal to establish a CRP with Rochdale Borough Council acting as the accountable body for the partnership in the first instance. 1.4 Forming a CRP would involve creating a Community Rail Officer post (part- time) to support the partnership, to develop a business plan and deliver activity to promote use of the Calder Valley Line. The work will increase community engagement and complement the Council’s Rail Corridor Strategy which promotes the physical regeneration of land and buildings around the Borough’s rail stations. Recommendation 2.1 Cabinet approves the formation of a CRP for the Calder Valley Line, in collaboration with Calderdale Council.
    [Show full text]
  • School Bus Services in Rochdale September 2018 to July 2019
    School Bus Services in Rochdale September 2018 to July 2019 Services in this leaflet operate on schooldays only, unless otherwise stated. Although provided primarily for school students, members of the public may use these services with the exception of Yellow School Buses. Services are listed alphabetically under school names. Rochdale Schools 2018-2019 - 1 - 07/01/19 An introduction to School buses and concessionary fares for students in Greater Manchester Passengers can pay a fare to the driver for each journey shown on this timetable. However, students will need to show an IGO pass to travel at the concessionary (reduced) fare. If students do not have an IGO pass, they will have to pay a higher fare. Most of the journeys shown in this timetable are funded by Transport for Greater Manchester (TfGM). The majority of TfGM funded services charge a standard fare and also offer daily return tickets. In some cases, the return ticket can also be used for travel on other journeys which serve similar areas – even if it is provided by a different operator. On most services, students can also buy a weekly scholar’s ticket, which costs £7.30. These are ONLY valid on schooldays on school buses and are available from the bus driver on all services where they are applicable. To help the driver, please try to have the correct fare when buying your ticket. A summary of fares and ticketing information on all school services included in this timetable can be found at https://www.tfgm.com/tickets-and-passes/bus-school-bus-services There are also a small number of TfGM funded services where the operator sets the fares.
    [Show full text]
  • Places for Everyone 2021 Statement of Consultation
    Places for Everyone 2021 Statement of Consultation July 2021 Places for Everyone 2021 Statement of Consultation Contents 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 4 2. Comparison of policy prefixes names and numbers between GMSF 2020 and PfE 2021 ............................................................................................................................. 8 PART A – Summary of Consultations .............................................................................. 14 2.1. Statement of Community Involvement Compliance .................................................... 14 2.2. Greater Manchester Spatial Framework Scoping survey 2014 ................................... 14 2.3. Draft Greater Manchester Spatial Framework Vision, Objectives and Options, Winter 2015/16 ...................................................................................................................... 14 2.4. Draft Greater Manchester Spatial Framework, Winter 2016/2017 ............................... 21 2.5. The Plan for Jobs, Homes and the Environment (GMSF) January to March 2019 ...... 26 PART B - The Plan for Jobs, Homes and Environment (Revised Draft GMSF) (2019) Consultation Report ................................................................................................. 29 3.1. Thematic Policies ....................................................................................................... 32 3.1.1. Context of GMSF ..........................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Elector Statistics by Area/PD/Street
    Elector Statistics by Area/PD/Street including other electors Printed: 28 June 2011 Houses Electors Street Details As First Added to Deleted Current As First Added to Deleted Applicants Current Published Register Published Register Pending DA - ANNE LINE CLOSE 7 0 0 7 16 0 0 0 16 DEANCOURT 41 0 0 41 99 0 1 (1.01%) 0 98 (-1.01%) DENHOLME ROAD 21 0 0 21 35 0 0 0 35 DENVER ROAD 23 0 0 23 51 0 1 (1.96%) 0 50 (-1.96%) DICKEN GREEN LANE 4 0 0 4 7 0 0 0 7 STONEYVALE COURT, DICKEN 73 0 0 73 102 1 (0.98%) 0 0 103 (0.98%) GREEN LANE DICKEN GREEN 24 0 0 24 35 0 2 (5.71%) 0 33 (-5.71%) DIGBY ROAD 34 0 0 34 70 0 0 0 70 DUNLOP AVENUE 34 0 0 34 59 0 0 0 59 EDINBURGH WAY 10 0 0 10 14 0 2 (14.29%) 0 12 (-14.29%) GREEN BRIDGE CLOSE 30 0 0 30 44 1 (2.27%) 0 0 45 (2.27%) HARTLEY LANE 17 0 0 17 28 0 0 0 28 HURST STREET 13 0 0 13 13 0 1 (7.69%) 0 12 (-7.69%) LABURNUM TERRACE 8 0 0 8 16 0 0 0 16 LOWTHER ROAD 42 0 0 42 69 2 (2.90%) 1 (1.45%) 0 70 (1.45%) MARGARET WARD COURT 30 0 0 30 32 0 0 0 32 OLDHAM ROAD 17 0 0 17 24 0 0 0 24 OTHER ELECTORS 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 IAN FRASER COURT, QUEENSWAY 38 0 0 38 43 0 1 (2.33%) 0 42 (-2.33%) QUEENSWAY 59 0 0 59 120 0 0 0 120 SCHOFIELD STREET 13 0 0 13 19 0 0 0 19 WELL I'TH' LANE 37 0 0 37 65 3 (4.62%) 6 (9.23%) 0 62 (-4.62%) WELL STREET 28 0 0 28 48 0 0 0 48 WELLFIELD MEWS 4 0 0 4 5 0 0 0 5 WELLFIELD PLACE 11 0 0 11 27 0 2 (7.41%) 0 25 (-7.41%) WELLFIELD STREET 15 0 0 15 19 1 (5.26%) 2 (10.53%) 1 18 (-5.26%) WILLIAM HENRY STREET 2 0 0 2 3 0 0 0 3 Totals for : DA - 636 0 0 636 1,063 8 (0.75%) 19 (1.79%) 1 1,052 (-1.03%) DB
    [Show full text]