DELEGATED ITEM
Proposed Gating Order – Gating Order No 25A Report of Assistant Chief Executive - Neighbourhoods
Portfolio Responsibility: Neighbourhoods – Councillor J Stretton
July 2011
Officer Contact: Mr Mike Farrell Ext. 1569
Purpose of Report
The purpose of this report is to seek approval to install gates on the highways detailed in the schedule at the end of the report under powers contained in Sections 129A to 129G Highways Act 1980 (as amended by the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005).
Executive Summary
The paths that are subject of this application are;
1. The access footpaths from the Irk Vale Estate, Chadderton onto Haigh Lane, Rochdale Canal towpath and the River Irk bank. The walkways are the one between 5 & 6 Pexwood Chadderton, the one between 2 & 3 Rookwood, Chadderton, this continues between 7 & 8 Rookwood, Chadderton (this is definitive footpath 25A) and the one between 7 Riverside and 12 Edge View, Chadderton, (this one is definitive footpath 24). CSS 937.
Consultation has been completed with residents and the support has achieved the 80% approval rate required by OMBC Alleygate Policy, this consultation was done by letter & by receipt of a petition. Letters have been sent to Emergency Services, Statutory Undertakers and other interested parties i.e. Ramblers and Open Spaces Society, no objections have been received by the Community safety Services from these groups.
Recommendations
It is recommended that the proposal to gate the highways, detailed in the schedule of this report, be advertised and where no objections are received the order to gate shall be made, but where objections are unresolved the Traffic Regulation Order Panel will be used to determine the merits of the proposal.
Page 2 of 30 12/04/2010 EXECUTIVE DECISION RECORDING SYSTEM REFERENCE No:
Proposed Gating Order – Gating Order No 25A Sections 129A to 129G Highways Act 1980
Report of Assistant Chief Executive Directorate – Neighbourhoods.
Portfolio Responsibility: Neighbourhoods – Councillor J Stretton
1 Background
1.1 The Oldham Community Safety Service has been examining the possibility of introducing physical measures in an effort to reduce crime in areas where an identified problem can be established.
1.2 As part of the Government’s efforts to cut down on crime and anti-social behaviour, new powers have been introduced under the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005 to allow local authorities to make gating orders restricting public rights of way over highways subject to the gating orders.
1.3 Before making a gating order, the Council must be satisfied that premises adjoining or adjacent to the highway subject to the order are affected by crime or anti social behaviour, the existence of the highway is facilitating the persistent commission of criminal offences or anti social behaviour and it is in all the circumstances expedient to make the order for the purposes of reducing crime or anti social behaviour. In considering whether it is expedient to make the order, the Council should have regard to the likely effect of making the order on the occupiers of premises adjoining or adjacent to the highway, the likely effect of making the order on other persons in the locality and in a case where the highway constitutes a through route, the availability of a reasonably convenient alternative route.
1.4 The purpose of this report is to seek approval to install gates on the highways detailed in the schedule in the report under powers contained in Sections 129A to 129G Highways Act 1980 (as amended by the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005).
2 Current Position
2.1 The current position is that the residents and properties adjacent to the alleyways in the schedule are subject to unacceptable levels of crime.
2.2 Attached is analysis (see Appendix C) that shows the number of different incidents that have occurred in the alleyways (or the immediate vicinity) subject of the application and over what time period.
Page 3 of 30 12/04/2010 2.3 The analysis shows the current situation regarding burglary crime, vehicle crime and ASB linked to crime at the specific locations.
2.4 Within the replies to the Community Safety Services from residents, whose alleyways are subject to the application, there is some anecdotal evidence to prove the amount of anti-social behaviour etc that has occurred and is still occurring.
2.5 Because of this evidence the Community Safety Unit is satisfied that:
• The premises adjoining or adjacent to the highways are affected by crime and anti-social behaviour • The existence of the highway is facilitating the persistent commissioning of criminal offences or anti-social behaviour • It is in all circumstances expedient to make an order for the purposes of reducing crime and anti-social behaviour
3 Options and Alternatives
3.1 The alternative to installing alleygates in the areas listed is to ‘targets harden’ all properties adjacent to the alleyways, however the nature of some of the crimes and incidents and the cost of such action makes this alternative unrealistic and cost prohibitive.
4 Preferred option
4.1 The preferred option is to gate the following, all of which are in various parts of Oldham Metropolitan Borough.
4.2 All residents having property adjoining the alleyways will be provided with keys, the cost of erecting and installing the gates will be met by funding identified by the Community Safety Services. The Community Safety Services will manage all the work, installation etc.
4.3 It is proposed to prevent access to all traffic (including pedestrian) with the exception of residents, persons with the residents’ permission, persons having a private right of access and the Statutory Undertakers. Maps showing the alleyways subject of this application and the alternative routes are shown at Appendix A.
5 Comments on Traffic and Highway Issues
5.1 The paths form pedestrian access from the local residential area through to the Irk Valley. The schedule that follows states that three of the paths are adopted and the fourth un-adopted. It should also be noted that the paths form part of the Public Rights of Way network as paths 24 and 25A. Other alternative routes are available but add some distance to the route to Chadderton Hall Park.
Page 4 of 30 12/04/2010
Schedule
Highways to be gated
Highways in the Description Status Alternative Route Borough of Oldham 1. The access The path from The first three Irk Vale Drive, Haigh footpaths from the Irk Pexwood to Haigh are adopted Lane and the Vale Estate, Lane runs in a pedestrian Rochdale Canal Chadderton onto generally southerly footpaths. towpath, the bank of Haigh Lane, direction for a The two the River Irk and the Rochdale Canal distance of 25 sections of pathway within towpath and the metres and is 2 footpath at Chadderton Hall Park, River Irk bank. The metres wide. The Rookwood in both directions. paths are the one path between 2 & 3 form the route between 5 & 6 Rookwood runs in a of Public Pexwood westerly direction for Footpath 25A Chadderton, the one 7.75 metres and Chadderton. between 2 & 3 then for a distance of The fourth is Rookwood, 22.5 metres in a unadopted Chadderton this generally southerly but is part of continues between 7 direction to its the route of & 8 Rookwood, junction with Haigh Public Chadderton (this is Lane and is 2 metres Footpath 24 definitive footpath wide. The path Chadderton. 25A) and the one between 7 & 8 between 7 Riverside Rookwood runs in a and 12 Edge View, north westerly Chadderton, (this one direction for 26 is definitive footpath metres to its junction 24). CSS 937. with the canal towpath and is 1.8 metres wide. The route of definitive footpath, No. 24, runs from Riverside in a generally northerly direction for a distance of 30 metres to the bank of the River Irk and is 3 metres wide.
Page 5 of 30 12/04/2010 6 Consultation
6.1 Consultation has taken place with 103 households (see Appendix B), along with the additional persons to be served with notices of orders, as listed in Statutory Instrument 2003 no.1479 such as Police, Fire, Ambulance, Statutory Undertakers. The Ramblers Association and Open Spaces Society have also been informed of this application. The proposals have also been raised at the ‘Rights of Way’ user group meeting on the 8 th July 2011.
Consultation with residents has been accomplished by writing letters and the receipt of resident petition.
6.2 Results of the Consultation:
Location Residents In Objectors No contacted Support reply
1. The access footpaths from the Irk 103 91 4 8 Vale Estate, Chadderton onto Haigh Lane, Rochdale Canal towpath and the River Irk bank. The paths are the one between 5 & 6 Pexwood Chadderton, the one between 2 & 3 Rookwood, Chadderton this continues between 7 & 8 Rookwood, Chadderton (this is definitive footpath 25A) and the one between 7 Riverside and 12 Edge View, Chadderton, (this one is definitive footpath 24). CSS 937.
6.3 Summary of Consultation:
A total of 103 households have been consulted with regarding the proposals for gating orders, 95 of them have replied to the consultation. 91 support the applications, and 4 have objected (see Appendix D). Therefore 88% of the people consulted with support the gating proposal (OMBC Policy on gating requires a minimum of 80% of persons consulted to be in favour). The residents supporting the proposal give a lot of anecdotal incidents of burglary, anti-social behaviour, annoyance, damage etc as their reasons for supporting the applications. All these replies are in the possession of the CSS and can, if required, be made available.
The Ramblers Association have objected to the ‘gating’ of the paths under a 24 hour closure ‘Gating Order’ (see Appendix D)
The Peak and Northern Footpaths Society have also objected to this application.
Page 6 of 30 12/04/2010 6.4 It is recommended that the proposal to gate the highways, detailed in the schedule at the end of this report, be advertised and where no objections are received the Order to gate shall be made, but where objections are unresolved the Traffic Regulation Order Panel will be used to determine the merits of the proposal.
7 Financial Implications
7.1 The cost of providing and fitting of gates will be met from funds identified by the Community Safety Services.
Revenue Implications
Capital Implications
8 Human Resources
8.1 Not applicable
9 Legal Services’ Comments
9.1 The Council must be satisfied that the highways to be gated meet the statutory requirements set out in paragraph 1.3 of this report. (A Evans)
10 IT Implications
10.1 None. 11 Property Implications
11.1 None.
12 Procurement Implications
12.1 None
13 Environmental and Health & Safety Implications
13.1 Energy - Nil.
13.2 Transport - Nil.
13.3 Pollution - Nil.
13.4 Consumption and Use of Resources - Nil.
13.5 Built Environment - Nil.
13.6 Natural Environment - Nil.
Page 7 of 30 12/04/2010 13.7 Health and Safety - The proposal has no direct effect on health and safety issues in the area.
14 Equality, Community Cohesion and Crime Implications
14.1 The proposals will improve the security of residential properties in the areas, reducing the opportunity for crime and removing the fear of crime for residents.
14.2 The improved security of the area will enhance the feeling of well being and quality of life, positively affecting the liveability aspect of the community.
15 Equality Impact Assessment Completed?
15.1 No . During the consultation period of this ‘gating order’ application, consultation included exploration of disability and language issues. The approval rate has been achieved and there are no implications with these issues.
16 Key Decision
16.1 This is not a key decision.
17 Forward Plan Reference
17.1 No.
18 Background Papers
18.1 The following is a list of background papers on which this report is based in accordance with the requirements of Section 100(1) of the Local Government Act 1972. It does not include documents which would disclose exempt or confidential information as defined by the Act:
OMBC Gating Policy Officer Name: Mr Mike Farrell Contact No: 0161 770 1569
19 Appendices
19.1 Appendix A – Plans of Proposals & Alternative routes, if applicable. Appendix B – List of Properties/Agencies consulted with Appendix C - GMP Analysis of Crime/ASB in alleyways or near to location to be gated. Appendix D - Copy of objection sent in.
Signed ______Dated ______Cabinet Member, Environment and Infrastructure
Page 8 of 30 12/04/2010
Signed ______Dated ______Executive Director
Report Tracking Where When EMT Leadership Joint Leadership Overview & Scrutiny
Page 9 of 30 12/04/2010 Appendix A
Page 10 of 30 12/04/2010
Appendix B
Alleygate Order 25A Mailing list
Residents
1 to 11 & 2 to 14 Rookwood, Chadderton 2 to 46 & 1 to 17 Irk Vale, Chadderton 1 to 11 & 2 to 10 Brandwood, Chadderton 1 to 9 & 2 to 10 Pexwood, Chadderton 1 to 11 & 2 to 14 Edge View, Chadderton 1 to 21 & 2 to 22 Riverside, Chadderton 1 to 3 & 2 to 4 Whinstone Way, Chadderton
Emergency Services
Sgt. Gary Wheelhouse Oldham Police Divisional HQ Barn Street Oldham
PC Mike Evans GMP Traffic Management Unit Traffic Network Section Hardy Street Peel Green Eccles M30 7ND
Community Fire Safety Officers Greater Manchester Fire & Rescue Service Oldham Command HQ Chadderton Fire Station Broadway Chadderton Oldham OL9 0JX
Mr. Francis Dreniw General Manager PES Greater Manchester Ambulance Service Bury Old Rd. Whitefield Manchester M45 6AQ
Mr. Steve Gill Sector Manager PTS Greater Manchester Ambulance Service Bury Old Rd.
Page 13 of 30 12/04/2010 Whitefield Manchester M45 6AQ
Statutory Undertakers
Openreach (British Telecom) Repayments PP115 North Street Building Moor Lane Preston PR1 1BA
Energis Communications Streetworks Office Claremont House Croxley Business Park Watford Hertfordshire WA18 8TR
Easynet Telecom Ltd. 70 Buckingham Avenue Slough SL1 4PN
Norweb Distribution Asset Management Hathersage Road Manchester M13 0EH
Your Comms Hathersage Road Chorlton-on-Medlock Manchester M13 0EH
Virgin Media Matrix Court Siemens Way Enterprise Park Swansea SA7 9BB
The National Grid Co. PLC PO Box 3484 NGT House (Electricity) Warwick Technology Park Gallows Hill Warwick CV34 6TG
Page 14 of 30 12/04/2010 National Grid Plant Protection (Gas mains) The Lakes Lakeside House Northampton NN4 7HD
United Utilities Plc Diversions Team 1st Floor Hawswater House Lingley Business Park Lingley Green Avenue Great Sankey WA5 3LP
Cable & Wireless c/o Atkins NRSWA Team PO Box 290 22 Aztec West Almondsbury Bristol BS32 4WE
Ramblers / Pedestrian Associations
Mr. John Walton The Ramblers Association 40 Taunton Road Chadderton Oldham OL9 0BE
The Peak and Northern Footpaths Society Taylor House 23 Turncroft Road Offerton Stockport SK1 4AB
Kate Ashbrook Open Spaces Society 25A Bell Street Henley-on-Thames Oxon RG9 2BA
Page 15 of 30 12/04/2010 Appendix C
Page 16 of 30 12/04/2010 Irk Vale- Crimes and ASB 30/06/2010 – 29/06/2011
Page 17 of 30 12/04/2010 Appendix D
Page 18 of 30 12/04/2010
Manchester and High Peak Area
Oldham Group
40 Taunton Road Chadderton Oldham OL9 0BE
0161 652 7718
email : [email protected]
Mr Shaun Cavill Crime Reduction Officer Community Safety Services Civic Centre Level 11 Oldham OL1 1UT
6th Aug 2011
Dear Mr Cavill
Re : Application for gating orders no 25. Irk Vale Estate, Chadderton. - CSS 937 .
History from 1977
Looking back through my records I see that this large housing estate was built in the late 1970’s and this was the first definitive path diversion order I was involved with. The Highway Authority at the time was the Greater Manchester Council. It was at the same time the Group were given a full set of definitive maps on the proviso that we survey the last remaining 44 def paths in Oldham MBC. I still have copies of the original 1979 diversions of footpaths 24 and 25a, Chadderton and I also have records of many of the legal orders going back from 1979 to the present time.
Green Belt
Looking at my copy of the UDP, I see this large housing estate borders on the Green Belt on 3 of its 4 sides. The west is the Rochdale Canal; the north is the River Irk, with rolling fields spreading all the way towards Slattocks, (see photo green belt 1 ). The east is Chadderton Hall Park. The south is the heavily built up area of Chadderton, going all the way down to Foxdenton Hall.
However this huge parcel of land is earmarked in the latest development plan as Land Reserved for future development! Another loss of open space!
Page 19 of 30 12/04/2010 Observations, evidence and comments.
It has taken me some time to put together a document relating to the proposed application for gating orders as per your letter dated 24 th June 2011. The 4 estate footpaths are (from your letter):
The access footpaths from the Irk Vale estate, Chadderton onto Haigh Lane, the Rochdale Canal towpath and the River Irk bank. (This is def path no 25a). The walkways are the ones between 5 and 6 Pexwood, the one between 2 and 3 Rookwood, the one between 7 and 8 Rookwood and the one between 7 Riverside and 12 Edge View. This is def path no 24 .
Due to the spread of access footpaths and the no of photos I have taken, I propose to split them into four sections. I walked the four sections and the photos are shown in the direction I walked. I am therefore going to make comment under the four headings below:
1. 25a south. Access footpath from Haigh Lane to between 7 and 8 Rookwood.
Photo 1.25a.1 - This shows the path from Haigh Lane down towards Rookwood where it turns left to the view shown on Photo 1.25a.2 - The top section is very clean with minimal vegetation. It is not signposted at the Haigh Lane end.
Photo 1.25a.2 - This shows the path approaching Rookwood with a lamppost at the end. The cleanliness is as per the previous photo.
2. Def footpath 25a north – Access footpath from Rookwood to the towpath of the Rochdale Canal.
Photo 2.25a.1 - This shows the path crossing Rookwood, with a lamppost towards the end. Again the cleanliness is as per the previous photos. At the end of this short path there are a set of steps that drop down to the Rochdale Canal towpath.
Photo 2.25a.2 - This shows the steps dropping down to the towpath. The cleanliness of the steps is similar to the previous photos.
Photo 2.25a.3 - Looking from the towpath up the flight of steps. There is actually no vegetation, nor any other litter.
Photo 2.25a.4 - Looking at the barrier located at the bottom of the steps, in the direction of the Rose of Lancaster. Again the towpath is reasonable clean with minimum amounts of dog dirt.
Photo 2.25a.5 - Looking at the barrier located at the bottom of the steps, in the direction of the aqueduct over the River Irk.
Page 20 of 30 12/04/2010 3. Def footpath 24. Access footpath from the path alongside the River Irk to Riverside.
Photo 3.24.1 - Looking at the bottom of the steps from the riverside path, in the direction of the weir.
Photo 3.24.2 - Looking at the bottom of the steps from the riverside path, in the direction of the aqueduct over the river.
Photo 3.24.3 - Photo of steps leaving the riverside path, up to Riverside. Some veg on the right hand side.
Photo 3.24.4 - Path at the top of the steps with lamppost on right. The veg on either side is starting to encroach onto the path, but not blocking it. There is a tree on the left hand side. The path is still relatively clean. Note that the fences have been recently painted!
Photo 3.24.5 – Looking back to the River Irk, with the Green Belt behind.
Photo 3.24.6 – Looking back along 24 to the River Irk. There is another short path which leaves the main path in the direction of the cul de sac of Riverside and on your map CSS 937 dated 5 July 2011 you show this short section also to be gated. Do you propose to erect fencing along these paths? It would certainly be an eyesore on this high value estate.
Photo 3.24.7 – Going along further towards Edge View, the short path and the cul de sac on the left can clearly be seen.
Photo 3.24.8 – This photo shows the estate road of Edge View and at the end is Vale Drive. It is not clear at this point how to approach the last section along Redwood, however it becomes quite steep at the end of the cul de sac of Redwood, which leads us to the next section.
4. Non def access footpath from Pexwood Lane to Haigh Lane
Photo 4.non def.1 – This photo shows the steps leaving Pexwood to gain access to Haigh Lane. Again it is relatively clean, with a lamppost at the bottom.
Photo 4.non def.2 – This photo shows the non def path at its junction with Haigh Lane. You can see the lamppost on the right, and there are branches over the path, but at the moment not a problem to pedestrians. It is not signposted.
5. Distances
I have scaled the map CSS 937 which is drawn at a scale of 1:1250, and this give the distances of the pathways as follows:
• From the towpath along def footpath 25a to Haigh Lane – about 37m.
Page 21 of 30 12/04/2010
• From the River Irk path to Haigh Lane – about 100m.
Looking at the map as regards alternatives the distance all the way round this estate equates to something like 700m! Anybody using the two paths are unlikely to walk all the way round but it gives you some idea of the existing routes compared to the size of the estate.
I will look at the two shortest alternatives (end to end) assuming everything is open and accessible.
5.1 Def footpath 25a – The shortest alternative route is by the towpath, Middleton Road, Haigh Lane – about 230m. Just over 6 times longer!
5.2 Def footpath 24 and non def path – Again the shortest alternative route is by the River Irk path, Chadderton Hall park, the short section of Haigh Lane by the park, to the main road, again named Haigh Lane – about 250m. Around 2.5 times longer. See below re locked park gates, the other alternative distance will be considerably longer alternative.
6. Steps.
Both the paths have steepish steps leading from the towpath and the River Irk path to the estate roads and then ramped up steps to Haigh Lane.
Your suggestion as regards the alternative route of 25a has the choice of a variety of steps at the Middleton Road end. I have taken a no of photos and the details are as follows:
Photo 6.1.steps before rose – Walking from 25a along the towpath to Middleton Road and a few metres before the Rose is a flight of steps hidden behind a board. These steps were the original one dating back to the days when the canal was first constructed. They were closed some 15 years ago, as they were very worn and unsafe, although as they are situated at the rear of the Rose, some security issues may also have been another factor.
Photo 6.2. steps at the rose – About 15m further on along the towpath, there is another flight of steps leading up to the beer garden and side entrance of the Rose of Lancaster. These steps were constructed some 10/15 years ago and have been modified as the beer garden has expanded. Although not def, they have been used for many years and have been used by myself and many others to access the canal from the Mills Hill bus stops and the train station at Mills Hill.
Photo 6.3. and 6.4 steps at the rose - I have taken 2 photos of the above steps where they access the beer garden. Photo 6.3 shows steps at the top to access the beer garden and photo 6.4 show the steps from the beer garden.
Page 22 of 30 12/04/2010 Photo 6.5. road bridge - I am enclosing these two photos of the Middleton Road, road bridge over the canal. Your map CSS 937 shows the alternative route leaving the canal, north of the towpath, when in fact there is no exit. The steps are in fact on the south side of Middleton Road. See later photos. This photo (6.4) shows the north side of the bridge.
Photo 6.6. road bridge – This shows the road bridge south of Middleton Road with the steps up to the main road on the right. An Oldham Way marker post can be seen just before the steps.
Photo 6.7. steps at Middleton Road - This photo shows the steps leading from the towpath up to Middleton Road.
Photo 6.8. steps at Middleton Road – This shows the steps at Middleton Road leading down to the towpath. It has a public footpath sign and an Oldham Way marker.
Photo 6.9. road bridge at Middleton Road – This is looking north in the direction of 6.5 and clearly there is no exit from the towpath to Middleton Road. In fact there is a greater distance to walk along the towpath south, leave the canal by the steps in 6.7, cross a very busy Middleton Road, to get to the Rose of Lancaster side. Not a Green Belt experience.
7. Gates and notices at the park entrance.
Your suggestion as regards the alternative route of path 24, from the River Irk seems to suggest going along the river, past the weir, through Chadderton Hall Park, along Haigh Lane to the main road to connect with the southern end of the non def path. About 250m.
However the park is closed at various times during the year and the gates are locked at each end of the park. If this is the case then the alternative route could be up to 500m! I have taken another set of photos to demonstrate that the 250m long alternative cannot be used especially when the park is locked:
7.1. notice at the Park entrance – This shows the opening and closing times – 8.00am each morning throughout the year and closing times of 4.30 to 9.30pm in the evening, depending on the time of the year.
7.2. gates at the Park entrance – This photo shows the pedestrian gate and the left hand side vehicular gate which are locked as described above.
7.3. gate at the Park entrance – This photo shows the right hand side vehicular gate which is locked as described above and security fencing behind.
8. Bus stops
There are 2 bus stops close to the junction with Haigh Lane and Kenilworth Avenue. They are located about 20m to the east of def footpath 25a. So anybody getting off
Page 23 of 30 12/04/2010 the bus from Oldham, Middleton or Manchester will have to walk a very long way around. Buses 64 and 406 call at these bus stops.
9. Conclusions
It has taken me quite some time to compose this letter and it is a good job I am within walking distance of the site and was able to take the many photos to create an overall picture. I am of the opinion that the scheme you have put forward leads me to object totally to any gating of these well used and popular local access paths.
In many of your previous alleygating schemes the alternatives proposed are not unreasonable and I have not objected. One of the most recent schemes is where the alternative was a little longer than usual, ie Hampton Road to Roman Road, Failsworth. However in this case the many alternatives are considerably longer, much longer. I will make a comment on the headings above:
Green Belt – These paths through the Irk Valley estate are a direct access and connect to the Green Belt and beyond, especially from the heavily built up area of Chadderton, going all the way down to Foxdenton Hall. They are a connection for dog walkers who in the past have been irresponsible, but lately have become more responsible in picking up their dogs poo. See photo green belt 1.
1 to 4. - Access footpaths – I have described the 4 estate access paths that you propose to gate. The paths generally are quite clean and not untidy. They are about 2m wide, do not pose a threat as they are lit at night and are generally straight and easy to locate.
5. Distances - The existing lengths of the 2 paths are 37m (path 25a) and about 100m (path 24 plus non def path). However the equivalent alternatives are very much longer 230m for path 25a (add some extra for the crossing of Middleton Road, possibly 50m) and 250m for path 24 and the non def path. (In this latter case, add considerably extra to allow for the closure of the park, say 250m extra!).
6. Steps – I have made comment re the no of steps that are on the possible alternative route for 25a. The first set just before the Rose, are closed. The second leading to the beer garden are a possibility, but I’m not sure what John Willies brewery would have to say in relation to using the steps, as a way of an alternative, although it is presently used as a PROW. The only legal way is to use the steps on the south side of the bridge. This adds extra to the alternative route of path 25a.
7. Gates at the park entrance.
The alternative for path 24 and the non def path is by way of Chadderton Park, but the timed locked gates make it impossible to use. So anybody trying this longer alternative, would have
to go back along the riverside path, onto the towpath and then exit at the steps, south of Middleton Road, possibly 500m. Not a reasonable alternative.
Page 24 of 30 12/04/2010
I have shown that the proposed gating order of the 4 estate footpaths on the Irk Vale estate in Chadderton is not really workable and even if it was timed, then the locked gates at the park and the alternative unreasonable distances to travel give me concern and therefore I must object to the proposals.
A timed gating order on the non def path could be looked at separately.
Other general comments.
I attended the Chadderton Area Committee a couple of weeks ago and see that OMBC have to date, completed 542 alleygating schemes, installed 1,427 gates in problem areas around Oldham. These gates are now providing protection to over 14,000 homes. The total cost to date is £1,711,00!
The RA has not objected to 99% of these alleygating schemes as they are generally in the older terraced streets of the Borough. However we are currently assisting OMBC financially to the tune of:
• £2500 from Manchester Area of the RA, for repairs to 11 stiles etc in the wider borough, 50% from the RA and 50% from OMBC.
• £300 from the Oldham Group of the RA towards a flight of steps on footpath 45 Chadderton. The same amount from the Chadderton Area committee and OMBC.
The RA would be particularly disappointed, if nevertheless, you did 24/7 gating on important footpaths like these on the Irk Vale Estate.
The other area of concern is that you appear, not to have not carried out a usage survey and therefore anything like this proposal should not even be considered.
I look forward to your comments.
Yours Faithfully
John Walton,
Footpath Secretary Sent by email
Page 25 of 30 12/04/2010
Page 26 of 30 12/04/2010
Page 27 of 30 12/04/2010
Page 28 of 30 12/04/2010
Page 29 of 30 12/04/2010
Page 30 of 30 12/04/2010