DOCSLIB.ORG

Report for Decision

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Report for Decision REPORT FOR DECISION Agenda item no: Overview and Scrutiny Committee - 16 th January 2012 Report of the Chief Executive CALLED-IN BUSINESS: ROCHDALE TOWNSHIP COMMUNITY CENTRES Wards affected: Report Author: Peter Thompson Telephone: (01706) 925209. The report presents details of a decision by Rochdale Township Action and Resources Committee (Delegated Sub-Committee) on 24th November 2011 that savings from Rochdale Township’s budget for Community Centres approved. , 1. It is recommended that: 1.1 The Overview and Scrutiny Committee give consideration to the above referred business and either:- a. confirm the decision of Rochdale Township Action and Resources Committee in which case the decision will take immediate effect; b. recommend to Rochdale Township Action and Resources Committee that they reconsider the decision on the grounds to be specified by this Overview and Scrutiny Committee, in which case the matter will be considered at the next meeting; c. To refer consideration of the item to Full Council to determine a recommendation as to whether the decision should be reviewed in which case a meeting will be arranged. 2. Reasons for recommendation: 2.1 The recommendations present three options available to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee in consideration of this issue which are considered in the Overview and Scrutiny Procedural Rules in the Council’s Constitution. 3. Alternatives considered: 3.1 None. 4. Consultation undertaken/proposed: 4.1 None. 5. Equal Opportunities Implications: 5.1 Not applicable. 6. Background: 6.1 Councillors Neilson and James Gartside have Called-in a decision of the Rochdale Township Action and Resources Committee (Delegated Sub-Committee), taken at its meeting on 24th November 2011, that for Rochdale Township the following savings from the Community Centres budgets be agreed:– a) Bangladesh Association and Community Project grant be reduced by 15%; b) Deeplish Community Centre a15% reduction to the grant; c) North Area Partnership a 15% reduction to the grant; d) Rochdale Women’s Welfare Association a 15% reduction to the grant; e) Castlemere Community Centre a 23% reduction to the grant; f) Kashmir Youth Project a 23% reduction to the grant; g) Sparth Community Centre a 23% reduction to the grant; h) Spotland Community Centre a 23% reduction to the grant; i) Sudden and Brimrod Community Centre a 23% reduction to the grant; j) Turfhill Community Centre a 23% reduction to the grant; k) Wardleworth Community Centre a 23% reduction to the grant. 6.2 The following papers are attached for Members consideration:- (a) Details of the Call-In (Appendix A). (b) The relevant Minute of the meeting of Rochdale Township Action and Resources Committee (Delegated Sub-Committee) held 24 th November 2011 (Min no. 154 refers) (Appendix B); and the related Committee reports of the Service Director for Housing and Regeneration (Appendix C – which is attached separately). (c) The response of Councillor Surinder Biant, Chair of Rochdale Township Action and Resources Committee (Appendix D). 6.3 The following Members have been invited to attend and have confirmed their attendance:- Calling-in Member(s): Councillor(s) Neilson and James Gartside. Responding Member: Councillor Surinder Biant. 7. Financial Implications: 7.1 Not applicable. For further Information and Background Papers: For further information about this report or access to any background papers please contact Peter Thompson, Lead Scrutiny Officer, Performance and Transformation Service, Floor 6, Telegraph House, Baillie Street, Rochdale; telephone - 01706 925209; e-mail [email protected] Roger Ellis Chief Executive. APPENDIX A – DETAILS OF CALL-IN Meeting: Rochdale Township Action & Resources Committee (Delegated Sub- Committee) Date: 24 th November 2011 Minute: Number: 154 Item: Rochdale Township Community Centres Calling-in Members: Councillor Neilson and Councillor James Gartside. Reasons for the Call-in as provided by the calling-in Members: - (a) There is not sufficient information on which to make a decision. Councillors Neilson and James Gartside have supported their call-in on the grounds that there was insufficient information on which the Committee could make a decision with the following statement:- “There are high density of community centres in some areas and duplicating services for some neighbourhoods which are not considered as value for money and also officers have failed to highlight such crucial issues to the members of Rochdale Township Action and Resources Committee”. APPENDIX B – BACKGROUND MINUTE AND REPORTS The decision of Rochdale Township Action and Resources Committee on 24th November 2011, (Minute no. 154 refers), in relation to this matter is detailed below, together with the report of the Service Director for Housing and Regeneration, on which Rochdale Township Action and Resources Committee based its decision. ROCHDALE TOWNSHIP ACTION AND RESOURCES COMMITTEE (DELEGATED SUB-COMMITTEE) 24 TH NOVEMBER 2011 ROCHDALE TOWNSHIP COMMUNITY CENTRES 154 The Sub-Committee considered a report of the Service Director for Housing and Regeneration detailing recommendations for delivering efficiency savings from the Community Centre budget in Rochdale Township. The Service Director for Housing and Regeneration updated the Sub-Committee as to an amendment to the submitted report in relation to Turfhill Community Centre which amended the overall saving being considered. The recommendations were put forward as part of the Council’s efficiency programme, Phase 2 where a proposal was developed, Cust 12d, to reduce the overall community centre budget by 23%. Members agreed the proposal but requested that the implementation be deferred for 12 months so they could receive detailed information on each centre and make a decision based on value for money. The report presented an evaluation of each community centre in the Rochdale Township along with a recommendation relating to each centre. Alternatives considered: to apply a 23% reduction to all grant aided centres or consider proposals to attain the equivalent savings. In considering the submitted report, the Chair invited representatives from Community Centres to address the Sub-Committee. DECIDED – That for Rochdale Township the following savings from the Community Centres budgets be agreed: – a) Bangladesh Association and Community Project grant be reduced by 15%; b) Deeplish Community Centre a15% reduction to the grant; c) North Area Partnership a 15% reduction to the grant; d) Rochdale Women’s Welfare Association a 15% reduction to the grant; e) Castlemere Community Centre a 23% reduction to the grant; f) Kashmir Youth Project a 23% reduction to the grant; g) Sparth Community Centre a 23% reduction to the grant; h) Spotland Community Centre a 23% reduction to the grant; i) Sudden and Brimrod Community Centre a 23% reduction to the grant; j) Turfhill Community Centre a 23% reduction to the grant; k) Wardleworth Community Centre a 23% reduction to the grant. REPORT FOR DECISION Agenda item no: Rochdale Township Action and Resources Sub- Committee 27 th October 2011 Report of Service Director Housing and Regeneration Delivering Phase 2 efficiency savings from the community centre budget – Cust 12d Wards affected: Report Author: Stephanie Thornton Telephone: (01706) 924355 This report presents options and recommendations for savings following detailed evaluation of each community centre in the township. 1. It is recommended that: 1.1 Members consider the options below and each centre’s evaluation report and decide how the savings requirement is to be delivered. 1.2 Centres with a grant or budget of less than £10k are not affected by a cut unless there are significant concerns. 1.2 The options are: 1.2.1 Apply a 23% per cent cut to all grant aided centres with more than £10k. Consider total withdrawal of the grant where/if indicated. 1.2.2 Apply a 23% cut to all grant aided centres with more than 10K. Apply a 15% cut to community centres which display good or exemplary practice and are considered good value for money. Consider total withdrawal of the grant where/if indicated. 1.3 For Rochdale township, the recommendations are: 1.3.1 BACP – 15% reduction to the grant Deeplish community centre – 15% reduction to the grant North Area Partnership – 15% reduction to the grant Rochdale Women’s welfare association – 15% reduction to the grant 1.3.2 Castlemere community centre – 23% reduction to the grant KYP – 23% reduction to the grant Sparth community centre – 23% reduction to the grant Spotland community centre – 23% reduction to the grant Sudden and Brimrod community centre – 23% reduction to the grant 1.3.3. Turfhill community centre – withdraw 100% grant funding 1.3.4. Wardleworth community centre – 23% reduction to the grant. Consider amalgamation with BACP. 1.3.5. This represents a saving of £82,195 2. Reasons for recommendation: 2.1 As part of the Council’s efficiency programme, Phase 2, a proposal was developed, Cust 12d, to reduce the overall community centre budget by 23%. Members agreed the proposal but requested that the implementation be deferred for 12 months so they could receive detailed information on each centre and make a decision based on value for money. 2.2 The centres with a 15% reduction recommendation are considered good value for money with no concerns about their governance or services. Castleton community centre has little or no controllable. 2.3 Officers have not been able to make contact with Turf Hill community centre volunteers/management committee despite several attempts. It has not been possible, therefore, to submit a report. 3. Alternatives considered: 3.1 The original proposal was to close one of the centres, withdraw all the funding from a further three centres, offer up all the ex-RCD budget and top slice all the community centres’ budgets by 23% but members were keen to receive more detailed information which would allow them to make a more informed decision based on what services are being delivered and how well each centre is being run. Also to acknowledge where improvements have been made.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Rochdale News July 2005 Page 1
    ROCHDALE FREENews Save our Vital Services! The new MP for Rochdale, Paul Rowen, Maternity and Child Care gets a big hug from Mum How must stay in Rochdale Rochdale aul Rowen MP and future of these vital services. The encouraging everybody to take Voted Rochdale Liberal Government talk about investing part in this consultation - I will in the P Democrats are calling more in the National Health be telling them to keep their Paul for the future of Child Care Service – and here we have what hands off our services - staff 2005 and Maternity Services to be is basically a cost cutting exercise. morale at the Infirmary is at an Rowen MP General guaranteed. This is in the light There is no better investment all time low, this is another kick Labour of a controversial review that than in our children’s lives, we in the teeth everybody involved.” Lib Dem Election has been announced that were told 2 years ago that these Rochdale Liberal Democrat 41.1% 40.0% could put the future of our services will continue in Rochdale Leader - Cllr. Alan Taylor said, “If services under threat. - we have saved them once and we stand together we can send a Conservative NHS Bosses have threatened to we will do again.” clear message to NHS bosses that 10.5% dramatically slash the number of Kingsway Resident - Annette Child and Maternity Services are hospitals in Greater Manchester Foster said, “This really is a bolt so important. We are worried that - that provide Child Care and from the blue - I believe it is to if we lose these services the Maternity Services from 13 to do with staff shortages across residents of Rochdale will have to between 6 and 8.
    [Show full text]
  • Manchester 1874-1876 New Church ACCRINGTON St
    Locality Church Name Parish County Diocese Date Grant reason ACCRINGTON School Chapel ACCRINGTON, St. James Lancashire Manchester 1874-1876 New Church ACCRINGTON St. Mary Magdalene ACCRINGTON, St. James Lancashire Manchester 1897-1904 New Church ACCRINGTON St. Paul, Barnfield ACCRINGTON, Christ Church Lancashire Manchester 1911-1913 New Church ACCRINGTON St. Peter ACCRINGTON, St. James Lancashire Manchester 1885-1889 New Church ALTHAM St. James ALTHAM Lancashire Manchester 1858-1859 Enlargement ASHTON-UNDER-LYNE Christ Church ASHTON-UNDER-LYNE, Christ Church Lancashire Manchester 1858-1860 Repairs ASHTON-UNDER-LYNE St. Peter ASHTON-UNDER-LYNE, St. Peter Lancashire Manchester 1934-1935 Repairs AUDENSHAW St. Hilda AUDENSHAW, St. Hilda Lancashire Manchester 1936-1938 New Church BACUP St. John the Evangelist BACUP, St. John the Evangelist Lancashire Manchester 1854-1874 Rebuild BACUP St. John the Evangelist BACUP, St. John the Evangelist Lancashire Manchester 1878-1884 Rebuild BAMBER BRIDGE St. Saviour BAMBER BRIDGE Lancashire Manchester 1869-1870 Enlargement BARROW-IN-FURNESS Mission Church WHALLEY, St. Mary Lancashire Manchester 1891 New Church BELFIELD St. Anne MILNROW, St. James Lancashire Manchester 1911-1913 New Church BENCHILL St. Luke the Physician BENCHILL Lancashire Manchester 1937-1939 New Church BIRCH St. Mary BIRCH Lancashire Manchester 1951-1952 Repairs BIRTLE CUM BAMFORD St. Michael, Bamford BIRTLE CUM BAMFORD, St. Michael, Bamford Lancashire Manchester 1883-1885 New Church BLACKBURN Mission Church BLACKBURN, All Saints Lancashire Manchester 1881 New Church BLACKBURN School Chapel BLACKBURN, St. Paul Lancashire Manchester 1876 Other BLACKBURN St. Bartholomew, Ewood LIVESEY, St. Andrew Lancashire Manchester 1908-1911 New Church BLACKBURN St. James BLACKBURN, St. John the Evangelist Lancashire Manchester 1872-1874 New Church BLACKBURN St.
    [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]
  • Impact Report 2019 Introduction
    IMPACT REPORT 2019 INTRODUCTION • Mission Statement • Improving peoples’ lives across our community through the power of sport • Respect • Opportunities for all • Caring • Health & wellbeing • Diversity • Ambitious • Life changing • Empowering Rochdale AFC Community Sports Trust works in partnership with Rochdale AFC to provide all members of the local community with the opportunity to access quality sport provision whatever their age, gender or ethnicity. We aim to increase participation in schools, improve health and wellbeing, while developing programmes that engage the whole of the community using football as the driving force. PARTNERSHIPS ■i®i!Ji � Premier '11League EFL TRUST Rochdale Rochdale Youth Service Boroughwide Housing ,.. (j)DALE SUPP□RTERS Level Playing Field � TRAIELSAFE T R U S T www.llfflplaylngfltld.org.uk -L Link4Life PARTNERSHIP _,..,, :1TOUT EFL TACKLING RACISM& DISCRIMINATION TRUST SPORT{?, FUTSAL ENGLAND PROJECT ACTIVITIES • SCHOOLS PROGRAMME - Intensive Week/PPA/Lunch Clubs/After school coaching/Match Day Visits/ EFL Trust Kids Cup & Girls Under 13’s Cup • SOCIAL INCLUSION – Premier League Kicks/Ability Counts/Open Arms/ Estates/Asylum seekers & refugees/Community Cohesion Programme • DISABILITY PROVISION – Schools/Under 16’s/Adults • HEALTH – Dale’s Silver 60s’/MIND/Walking Football • EDUCATION – Futsal BTEC Scholarship/NCS/Internship/Primary Stars/ Numeracy & Respect • MATCH DAY ACTIVITIES – Mascots/Birthday Parties/Half time events • SPORTS PARTICIPATION – Holiday courses/Weekend Clubs/Futsal/ Birthday Parties/Festivals/Open
    [Show full text]
  • Codebook for IPUMS Great Britain 1851-1881 Linked Dataset
    Codebook for IPUMS Great Britain 1851-1881 linked dataset 1 Contents SAMPLE: Sample identifier 12 SERIAL: Household index number 12 SEQ: Index to distinguish between copies of households with multiple primary links 12 PERNUM: Person index within household 13 LINKTYPE: Link type 13 LINKWT: Number of cases in linkable population represented by linked case 13 NAMELAST: Last name 13 NAMEFRST: First name 13 AGE: Age 14 AGEMONTH: Age in months 14 BPLCNTRY: Country of birth 14 BPLCTYGB: County of birth, Britain 20 CFU: CFU index number 22 CFUSIZE: Number of people in individuals CFU 23 CNTRY: Country of residence 23 CNTRYGB: Country within Great Britain 24 COUNTYGB: County, Britain 24 ELDCH: Age of eldest own child in household 27 FAMSIZE: Number of own family members in household 27 FAMUNIT: Family unit membership 28 FARM: Farm, NAPP definition 29 GQ: Group quarters 30 HEADLOC: Location of head in household 31 2 HHWT: Household weight 31 INACTVGB: Adjunct occupational code (Inactive), Britain 31 LABFORCE: Labor force participation 51 MARRYDAU: Number of married female off-spring in household 51 MARRYSON: Number of married male off-spring in household 51 MARST: Marital status 52 MIGRANT: Migration status 52 MOMLOC: Mothers location in household 52 NATIVITY: Nativity 53 NCHILD: Number of own children in household 53 NCHLT10: Number of own children under age 10 in household 53 NCHLT5: Number of own children under age 5 in household 54 NCOUPLES: Number of married couples in household 54 NFAMS: Number of families in household 54 NFATHERS: Number of fathers
    [Show full text]
  • The WEA in Manchester.Indd
    wea.org.uk The WEA in Greate Manchester combined Littleborough authority Ramsbottom Milnrow Bury Horwich Rochdale Bolton Bury Crompton Bolton Rochdale Oldham Middleton Saddleworth Wigan Oldham Wigan Atherton Prestwich Worsley Mossley Tydesley Ashton Salford under-lyne Manchester Leigh Salford Droysden Tameside Stretford Irlam Denton Manchester Trafford Stockport Stockport Marple Altrincham Cheadle & Gatley Hale The WEA is a charity registered in England and Wales (no. 1112775) and in Scotland (no. SC039239). The WEA in Greater Manchester combined authority ADAB Creative Living Centre Prestwich Manchester Cathedral St James the Apostle All Saints Church Hall Crossley Centre Manchester Chinese Centre St Johns Centre All Saints Hale Barns with Ringway Parish Deeplish Community Centre Mayo Building St Mary and the Baum Church Church Deeplish Primary Academy Meadowfields Community and Children~s St Mary Magdalene Church Centre Altrincham Methodist Church Centre Denton Methodist church St Peter~s Church Apna Ghar Daycare Centre (KYP) Mechanics Institute Each Step St Peters Primary School Ashfield Valley Primary Methodist Church Cheadle Hulme East Didsbury Methodist Church St Phillips with St Stephens Ashton Central Library, Old Street Mind Wellbeing Centre Edge Lane Methodist Church STAG HQ (South Trafford Archaeological AVANTA Oldham Monton Memorial Hall Group) Falinge Community Hubb Bangladeshi Womens Organisation NEESA Woodville Community Resource Unit Sudden Community Centre Fallowfield Library Befriending Asylum Seekers and Refugees Old
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter II Normans and Plantagenets
    Chapter Two NORMANS AND PLANTAGENETS : 1086-1485 THE DOMESDAY BOOK . OCHDALE'S written history begins in 1086, when William the Conqueror sent his men all over England to find out how much land was being cultivated and how much revenue he might expect R to collect : the result was the Domesday (or Doomsday) Book, so called because of its uncompromising thoroughness and detail . Its two volumes, written in crabbed Latin, with words occasionally scored through in red for emphasis, instead of being underlined, are now displayed at the Public Record Office, London . One can imagine the difficulties of the Norman inspectors : how unwillingly and in what various dialects the English land-holders gave their answers when the " day of reckoning " came upon them . Perhaps this may account for the fact that "Rochdale" is set down as " Recedham ." It was probably then, as we still hear it today, pro- rounced as " Ratchda ' " with a long " a," and a soft Cheshire " c." Very freely translated and abbreviated, this is the gist of the Domesday entry concerning Rochdale as it was in the time of Edward the Confessor (1042-1066), excluding such details as the King's personal property and lands in the Salford Hundred : King Edward held Salford . To this Hundred belonged 21 manors held by as many thanes ; in which there were 112 hides and 102 carucates of land . Camel, a tenant of 2 of these hides in Recedham, was free of all customs but these six : theft, housebreaking, premeditated assault, breach of the peace, not answering the reeve's summons, and 1 4 ROCHDALE RETROSPECT continuing a fight after swearing on oath to desist .
    [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]
  • Kitchen Street, Rochdale: an Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment
    Kitchen Street, Rochdale: An Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment. Report By: Vicky Nash & Dr Michael Nevell Centre for Applied Archaeology CUBE University of Salford 113-115 Portland Street Manchester M1 6DW Tel: 0161 295 3821 Email: [email protected] Contents Summary 2 1. Introduction 3 2. Methodology Statement 4 3. The Setting 5 4. Archaeological & Historical Background 7 5. Gazetteer of Sites 13 6. Significance of the Remains 18 7. Impact of the Development 22 8. Recommendations for Mitigation 26 9. Sources 27 Appendix 1: Figures 30 Appendix 2: Photographic Archive 42 Kitchen Street, Rochdale: An Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment Page | 1 Report Number 09/2010 Summary The Centre for Applied Archaeology (CfAA) was commissioned by The Regenda Housing Group to carry out an archaeological Desk-Based Assessment of a proposed development on the land bounded by Kitchen Street, Ramsey Street and the rear properties facing South Court, Rochdale ( SD 9022 1365). The study area contains potential archaeological remains of the 19th and 20th centuries. These remains belong to four main types of activity: the tanning factory (sites 1a to 1d, early to mid-19th century); the remains of workers’ housing (sites 3a, 3b and 9, 19th century); the church mission (sites 11a and 11b, early to mid-20th century) and the nursery (site 13, mid- to late 20th century). None of the potential remains within the study area are considered to have national significance. However the study area does contain potential remains of regional and local significance, which will be destroyed by the proposed development and will therefore require appropriate recording to be made.
    [Show full text]
  • Rochdale Township Green Infrastructure Action Plan Draft: May 2013
    Rochdale Township Green Infrastructure Action Plan draft: May 2013 Contents: Chapter 1 Why a Green Infrastructure Plan for Rochdale 1 Township? Chapter 2 What is Green Infrastructure? 4 Chapter 3 Policy Context for Green Infrastructure in Rochdale 10 Township Chapter 4 What do we want Green Infrastructure in Rochdale 12 Township to do? Chapter 5 Green Infrastructure in Rochdale Township by Area 19 Chapter 6 Green Infrastructure Objectives for Rochdale 53 Township Chapter 7 Key Partnerships for Delivery 66 Appendix Policy Context 68 Glossary & Abbreviations 70 Further References and links (Text to be finalised) Chapter 1: Why a Green Infrastructure Plan for Rochdale Township? Introduction Rochdale Township is home to the largest proportion of the borough’s population and is the main centre for shopping, services, leisure, local government and employment within the Borough. It has a strong sense of identity with distinct ambitions to create sustainable communities for its people, environment and economy. The quality of the environment including its green spaces, watercourses and surrounding countryside is important in shaping how the Township is perceived and experienced both by residents and visitors, along with potential investors. The environment is also part of the essential infrastructure for the Township, Borough and beyond including the core of Greater Manchester. This Action Plan sets out Rochdale Township’s particular green infrastructure assets and a series of key objectives and projects to ensure that their value to the Township is fully realised in supporting economic growth, community health and well being and a sustainable environment which can help address the impacts of climate change.
    [Show full text]
  • (Including the "Infra" Wills) Now Preserved in the Probate
    THE RECORD SOCIETY FOR THE $uMtcation of OMøraai Bømtnrate RELATING TO LANCASHIRE AND CHESHIR] FHl TITI 239 VOLUME LXX VII I. By i 1 Be O I BEING THE VOLUME FOR THE YEAR ^ 1923-24. V, COUNCIL. 1927-8. WM. FERGUSSON IRVINE, M.A., F.S.A., Bryn Llwyn, Corwen, North Wales, President. Col. JOHN PARKER, C.B., D.L., F.S.A., Browsholme, Clitheroe, Vice-President. F. C. BEAZLEY, F.S.A., 4 Arnside Road, Oxton, Birken­ head. J. H. E. BENNETT, F.S.A., Shavington, Nr. Crewe. HENRY BRIERLEY, LL.D., 26 Swinley Road, Wigan. E. W. CROSSLEY, F.S.A., Broad Carr, Holywell Green, Halifax. W. E. GREGSON, 43 Moor Lane, Great Crosby, Liverpool. G. T. SHAW, M.A., Chief Librarian, Liverpool Public Library. J. P. SMITH, Arndene, Barrow-in-Furness. RONALD STEWART-BROWN, M.A., F.S.A., Bryn-y-Grög, Nr. Wrexham. HONORARY TREASURER. WM. ASHETON TONGE, P.O. Box, No. 450, 16 Cumberland Street, Manchester. HONORARY SECRETARY. ROBERT GLADSTONE, B.C.L., M.A., 9 Bluecoat Chambers, School Lane, Liverpool. TO THE Mills; antr Siimmtsítrattonsi (ïïncluoíng tíje " Snfra " WLíUx) NOW PRESERVED IN tKíje probate ^egtátrp, AT CHESTER, FOR THE YEARS I8II—1820, BOTH INCLUSIVE. PART I—A TO L. EDITED BY WM. ASHETON TONGE, HONORARY TREASURER. PRINTED FOR THE RECORD SOCIETY OF LANCASHIRE AND CHESHIRE. 1928. PREFACE This volume contains Part I, (A—L) of an Index to the Wills proved, Administrations granted, Inventories filed, and other kindred documents preserved in the Probate Registry at Chester during the years 1811 to 1820, both inclusive.
    [Show full text]
  • Greater Manchester
    Rochdale Town Centre, Rochdale, Greater Manchester Archaeological Desk- based Assessment Oxford Archaeology North June 2009 The Rochdale Development Agency Issue No: 2009-10/954 OA North Job No: L10144 NGR: SD 89849 13536 Rochdale Town Centre, Rochdale, Greater Manchester: Desk-based Assessment 1 CONTENTS SUMMARY .......................................................................................................................3 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...................................................................................................5 1. INTRODUCTION ..........................................................................................................7 1.1 Circumstances of Project.....................................................................................7 1.2 Location, Topography and Geology....................................................................7 2. METHODOLOGY .........................................................................................................9 2.1 Introduction.........................................................................................................9 2.2 Desk-based Assessment ......................................................................................9 2.3 Site Visit............................................................................................................10 2.4 Archive..............................................................................................................10 3. BACKGROUND ..........................................................................................................11
    [Show full text]