Subject: Town Centre Heritage – Status: For Publication Proposed River Re-opening Report to : Date: Cabinet 4th July 2012 Rochdale Township Committee 11 th July 2012

Report of: Service Director – Planning and Email: [email protected] Regulation Tel: 01706 924307 Author: Peter Rowlinson

Cabinet Member: Councillor Williams, Portfolio Holder for Economic Development and Customer Services Comments from Section 151 Officer X Statutory Officers: Monitoring Officer X Key Decision: No

1. PURPOSE OF REPORT

1.1 This report sets out the case for and options for the re-opening of the through Rochdale Town centre. It sets out the reason why we should examine the wider heritage and leisure potential of the town centre to support the retail, Council and transport investments already underway or proposed.

1.2 The report sets out the conclusions of initial feasibility work but also recognises that there is further work to be undertaken before a final decision can be made. It will also be necessary to pursue grant assistance from Heritage Lottery Fund but it is possible to confirm that an offer of £500,000 from the Environment Agency has been made towards the detailed design costs and implementation of the scheme.

1.3 The report is presented to Rochdale Township Committee for information.

2. RECOMMENDATIONS

2.1 With particular regard to the proposed river re-opening members are requested to:

1. Note progress on the initiative 2. Accept the grant offer of £500,000 from Environment Agency 3. Support the development of Option 4 as the preferred option subject to discussions with Environment Agency 4. Authorise the further development of the proposal including more detailed design work 5. Authorise the submission of a planning application and compulsory purchase order for the scheme

Version Number: Page: 1 of 8

6. Authorise officers to pursue further resource opportunities especially Heritage Lottery Fund 7. Request that officers bring further reports on progress to Cabinet 8. Rochdale Township Committee notes the report

3. MAIN TEXT INCLUDING ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED/ CONSULTATION CARRIED OUT

3.1 Whilst there are significant challenges ahead in regenerating Rochdale Town Centre it is important to note that substantial progress has been made and that the town centre already has some very important assets. Some of these assets are in the process of being created or improved, such as the new Transport Interchange and Metrolink Terminus, but others are a valuable legacy from the town’s proud history. The key historical and architectural assets are:

• Rochdale Town Hall • Town Hall Square • Memorial Gardens • Broadfield Park • Parish Church • Toad Lane Museum • The mediaeval network of ginnels around the Walk and along the former packhorse route across the river and valley sides

3.2 Within there is widespread recognition that the quality of the townscape and its heritage value is unique and is of the highest quality. The recent Greater Manchester Town Centres Study identified Heritage as Rochdale’s USP and this was the only town centre where this was recognised.

3.3 A literally hidden asset is the River Roch where recent work has identified the existence of the original bridges dating back to the 13 th Century. Re-opening part of the currently concealed river presents an exciting opportunity to reveal this hidden asset and transform the adjoining public spaces, notably The Butts area. The Council is working with RDA colleagues on a costed feasibility study. This report summarises the results of initial feasibility work.

3.4 The broader strategy for Rochdale Town Centre involves active working with the business community and other partners to bolster current trading activity and moderate the impact of the major infrastructure works and other changes underway, whilst also progressing plans to significantly improve the retail, leisure and cultural offer.

3.5 There is an increasing recognition that town centres will have to change in the future. The new shopping patterns and increased use of on-line shopping and the tendency of major retailers to move from convenience to comparison goods and services appears to mean that the future of town centres as shopping and service centres has to change. Rochdale is making progress in improving the retail offer but we need to accept the importance of developing a wider cultural and heritage offer to create a broadly based town centre.

3.6 Town centres have to remain as the focus of retail and administrative activity because of their accessibility and there are strong arguments that they are pivotal in providing goods and services for the whole community. The new national planning policy emphasises this point

Version Number: Page: 2 of 8

3.7 The Rochdale Town Centre investment strategy broadly reflects the physical context set by the existing Town Centre Master Plan but we are looking to provide an updated explanation of the current approach that embraces both the shorter term actions underway and the ongoing longer-term development plans. This will be presented to members in the near future but more immediate decisions are required on the River Re-opening Project to capture the interest of external funding partners and move the initiative forward.

3.8 It is essential therefore that in addition to the retailing offer the Council should develop Rochdale Town Centre as a destination which attracts visitors seeking a wide range of leisure, retail and cultural experiences. Rochdale is well positioned to exploit this opportunity but at present is characterised by:

• The lowest amount of leisure floor space of any major town centre in Greater Manchester • A very narrow and increasingly unviable night time economy based upon a few clubs and drinking establishments which serve a market from midnight to 5am on Fridays and Saturdays only. • Very few opportunities for quality eating albeit those in the town centre e.g. La Mancha does well • No cinema or theatre meaning there is no engagement with cultural activities and more affluent members of the community find little to attract them to visit the town centre in the evening • A good visitor attraction in Touchstones but one which serves a largely local market • Underused opportunities such as the Town Hall, Parish Church, Broadfield Park • A lack of co-ordinated marketing and promotion of the town centre as a visitor destination

There are, however, some positives besides the quality of the basic offer

• The extension of Toad lane museum and publicity around the International Year of Co-operation is a major opportunity • The town hall is an emerging opportunity as it becomes available for a wider range of uses • The Town Centre East development is intended to provide a wider range of eating and leisure opportunities for the town as well as securing major environmental improvements through the removal of eyesores such as ‘the black box’ and multi storey car park. • New transport investment will make Rochdale much more accessible for visitors • Some improvements to the town centre offer have been secured e.g. Memorial Gardens Improvements and more are underway with improved public realm along Drake Street and Smith Street

3.9 There are a collection of major cultural and heritage assets concentrated in the area around the Town Hall, Esplanade and The Butts that provide the focus for a strong cultural and visitor offer. Central to this strategy would be the opportunity now being developed to open up sections of the River Roch through the town centre. The options are described in more detail in the next part of this report but current thinking is centred upon re-opening the length through The Butts which offers the best heritage and townscape opportunities.

3.10 Associated with this should be an initiative to exploit the ginnels on the north side of the river such as The Walk and Bull Brow. These offer a link between Yorkshire Street

Version Number: Page: 3 of 8

and the Town Centre East scheme to be exploited by the proposed improvement of Baillie Street West and the pedestrianisation of Baillie Street as part of the Town Centre East development.

3.11 The emerging town centre movement strategy will support these initiatives by removing through traffic and in particular by removing the roundabout at the junction of Newgate and The Esplanade. This work has been to Rochdale Township Committee and specific proposals will be taken back to the Committee in July. The river proposals are fully compatible with the emerging movement framework for the town centre.

3.12 This will remove the barrier which currently exists between the Town Hall and The Butts/Yorkshire Street as a result of the physical separation and traffic movements and will enable the Town Hall Square to be exploited more as a focus on public events. In turn this frees up the Butts for the re-opening of the river. The Butts is an awkward space and was not popular for events and the recent pilot markets on Yorkshire Street have demonstrated that this is a far better location for traders and shoppers alike.

3.13 River Re-opening

A considerable effort has gone into investigating the possibility of re-opening the river through the town centre. The following key points have been established.

• The mediaeval bridge and associated Georgian extensions remain largely intact and in good condition. • The original stone walls remain in the area under The Butts, but have largely been removed in the section along The Esplanade. • Major sewers connect into the river under Drake Street and near the Post Office. • River flows are adequate to provide interest for most of the year subject to the introduction of planting in some areas to cover exposed concrete river beds. • There are no smells or major visual problems with the river albeit some improvements are needed in terms of softening the river concrete floor and covering a concreted sewer running along part of the river bed.

It is considered therefore that it is feasible to open up sections of the river in ways which will benefit the town centre. This would make Rochdale unique in Greater Manchester in having an attractive river environment making the town centre more appealing to visitors, workers and investors.

There also appear to be advantages in reducing flood risk and mitigating against climate change and in particular the heat sink effect of warmer summers trapping heat in the valley.

Re-opening the river would complement other proposals such as the new Council Offices named One Riverside in anticipation of the continued exploitation of the river and the possibility of a Roch Valley initiative which would open up the river for public access throughout the Borough.

Options for Re-opening

3.14 Following an initial review it was felt sensible to concentrate effort on the section through The Butts. This was a result of factors such as

• The section though The Esplanade although relatively easy to pursue would require substantial investment in replacing concrete walls which have replaced the original stone work and would require the rerouting of parts of The Esplanade with

Version Number: Page: 4 of 8

implications for other town centre projects such as the town hall where we have yet to develop thinking and where studies are underway but with no conclusions to offer to members. • The townscape opportunities around The Butts are more obvious as the buildings and land ownerships here were developed to be orientated towards the river and its absence leaves an awkward space. • The impact on business and investment opportunities around The Butts is greater with a number of high quality buildings adjacent to the river. • Investment in The Butts was felt to have a greater initial impact and would not prevent any later investment in The Esplanade. An indicative layout for the section through The Esplanade has been developed but has not been pursued further but does indicate the potential for further work.

Four options have been investigated. These are:

1 Minimal re-opening either side of the mediaeval bridge. This would open up sections of about 10/20 meters in length either side of the bridge making it visible albeit at an angle. The section to the west of the bridge ie between Yorkshire Street and Newgate is restricted by roads and services and so all other options accept this limited opening and other options extend the opening on the eastern side of the bridge ie across The Butts. This option is shown as C and A2 on the accompanying plan.

2 Medium Option which involves extending the eastern opening to about 27 meters. Shown as C, A2 and A on the accompanying plan

3 Maximum Option which extends the opening as far as Wellington Bridge which needs to be retained to accommodate Metrolink. This extends the opened section of the river to 31 meters (70 meters in total). This option removes the river wall on the northern side to create a grassy slope down to the river which can be planted. It is the full area defined by the black line on the plan.

4 A low cost maximum option has been developed which retains the length of the opening under the previous option but does not excavate the slope and also retains a section of the current bridge structure where this contains services. This provides a total opened length of about 45 meters on the eastern side of the bridge. This is shown as areas A, A2, B and C on the accompanying plan.

A set of plans and illustrations will be available for cabinet to view at the meeting.

The estimated costs of these options are:

1. Works £817K to £1075m Bridge refurbishment £250,000

2. Works £1.148m to £1.513m Bridge refurbishment £250,000

3. Works £2.725m to£3.619m Bridge refurbishment £250,000

4. Works £1.528m to £2.018m Bridge refurbishment £250,000

Common to all options are:

Removal of roundabout at The Esplanade and other highway works £389,000.

Public Realm improvements associated with river £103,000

Version Number: Page: 5 of 8

There are other potential public realm improvements which affect the treatment of The Butts and adjoining areas. These are optional as far as this specific proposal is concerned and involve the interface with the GenR8 scheme and are therefore included within the wider town centre capital programme. We have included some of these works within the discussions with Heritage Lottery.

It is recommended that we pursue option 4 for the following reasons:

1. It opens up the maximum length of river through The Butts offering best views of the mediaeval bridge.

2. It offers best value for money compared with option 3 by avoiding the need to remove large amounts of earth to create the slope down to the river and it also avoids the need to move services, some of which have only just been moved to accommodate Metrolink.

3. This option also has safety benefits by limiting public access directly to the river. There is inevitability that members of the public could enter the river if this was an easy opportunity.

Plans and illustrations of the options are appended to this report.

In our discussions with Environment Agency we have been requested to maximise the ecological value of the scheme. We will therefore explore a hybrid option between 3 and 4 but the likely costs of this will exceed the potential grant from EA and will add to the costs incurred by the Council. Discussions will be held with the River Restoration Trust to establish the best ways of securing a high ecological value to the project. These will include planting on exposed areas of the river bed to ensure an attractive view at all times.

4. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

4.1 Whilst officers have investigated options for the re-opening of the river we have also been investigating resource options. Some progress has been made albeit with one setback.

4.2 Positive progress has been made with the Environment Agency with the result that an offer of £100,000 towards detailed design costs in 2012/3 has been made. This funding will come from the ‘Northern Ambition’ fund. We have written confirmation that the Agency intends to make additional resources available to implement the scheme. The scale of these are not yet known but a figure of between £500,000 and £1m seems the most likely level. Following a meeting with EA we understand that a bid for a total of £500,000 from the EA Northern Ambition Fund has now been made. We are working with EA on the details of this bid. We are continuing to explore other EA funding opportunities such as Regional Flood and Coastal Committee and main programme. A condition of the Northern Ambition funding is that expenditure is incurred in the current financial year which gives us a challenging timescale. Means of meeting this requirement are being explored and it looks likely that we can achieve this without a start on physical works.

4.3 The re-opening of the river was a major part of the recent Drake Street Townscape Heritage Initiative bid to the Heritage Lottery Fund. This has unfortunately not been successful because whilst the bid scored well and matched one of the successful bids the fact that two schemes in the North West previously rejected but the subject of intensive work between the Councils and HLF meant that these have received priority.

Version Number: Page: 6 of 8

4.4 This news is disappointing but has been mitigated by subsequent discussions which have led to HLF inviting an application for the bridge as a free standing project. Given the timescales for the Heritage Lottery Fund application process, this bid was the subject of an Expression of Interests application on 25th May. We have suggested a likely grant request to HLF of around £790,000.

4.5 We are also intending discussing the possibility of a smaller bid to HLF for the area around the river under the next round of THI. Our understanding is that Drake Street itself is not very attractive to HLF but a repackaged and smaller submission may succeed.

4.6 Other funding sources are being explored including ERDF through both mainstream and the LIFE programme but some provision of Council resources is to be included in the report to members on the revised capital programme for the town centre.

4.7 At this stage we cannot be categoric on scheme costs and funding opportunities but the current proposition assuming members endorse Option 4 is set out below.

Option 4 Engineering costs £2,018,000 (highest estimate) Bridge renovation £250,000 Conservation deficit (increased costs associated with heritage design and materials) £103,000 CPO and other fee costs £100,000

Highway Costs £389,000 Other Public Realm £450,000

Total £3310,000

NB it is anticipated that the Highway Costs and Other Public Realm will be contained with other budgets as they are proposals within the emerging Town Centre Movement Strategy and are required regardless of the river re-opening. Recent consideration of the Town Centre Movement Strategy indicates that the public realm costs may be able to be reduced. This gives a net cost prior to any savings of

£2471,000

Funding of these costs is currently anticipated to come from

Northern Ambition (EA) £500,000 Regional Flood Committee £200,000 Environment Agency Mainstream £200,000 Heritage Lottery Fund £790,000

Total £1690,000

This would leave a residual amount of £781,000 to be met by the Council. It must be emphasized that the above contributions cannot be confirmed albeit other funding opportunities may emerge and the additional Highways and Other Public Realm costs will also fall on the Council albeit potentially funded from elsewhere.

A fall back worst case position has been submitted within the emerging capital programme as a Council contribution of £1,700,000. It should be noted that there is an existing Town Centre Public Realm budget of £2.4m of which £2.1m remains

Version Number: Page: 7 of 8

uncommitted. This resource is, however, needed for a range of public realm works across the town centre and any net contribution from this budget will be lower.

At this stage we are not seeking full endorsement to the scheme as there are considerable uncertainties but would wish members to support continued work on the proposal.

5. LEGAL IMPLICATIONS

5.1 The re-opening of the river will require various traffic orders to be made given that The Butts is a public space but these can be dealt with through further reports. Discussions with Legal Services have suggested that a CPO may be needed if the Council cannot prove title to the adjoining land thereby proving title to the river bed. The historic nature of property ownerships in this area make it impossible to demonstrate ownerships. Cabinet is therefore requested to endorse the submission of a CPO. This in turn will require us to make progress on a planning application for the river re- opening. Most of the information needed is available and therefore members are requested to authorize the development and submission of a planning application for the re-opening of the river on members preferred option.

6. PERSONNEL IMPLICATIONS

6.1 There are no personnel implications contained within this report.

7. RISK ASSESSMENT IMPLICATIONS

7.1 A number of major risks remain, particularly about funding where work on costs needs to be developed. The offer from the Environment Agency to assist with detailed design and feasibility is welcomed as this will reduce the uncertainty and allow more confidence in funding requirements to be established.

7.2 Other risks are technical and are associated with the following issues:

• ensuring the river bed remains an attractive feature regardless of water levels • understanding better any engineering constraints eg condition of river walls • securing the necessary legal orders given that there are potential implications for loading and servicing of some areas albeit these are not seen as fundamental.

7.3 Legal risks exist around land ownership and process which are being explored at present so these cannot be fully quantified but which will be resolved through a CPO.

Peter Rowlinson Service Director – Planning and Regulation Service

Version Number: Page: 8 of 8