Public Document Pack
Customers and Corporate Directorate David Wilcock Head of Legal and Governance Reform Governance & Committee Services 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: Peter Thompson Committee Telephone: 01706 924715 Date: Friday, 15 th May 2015
Dear Councillor
Pennines Township Committee
You are requested to attend the meeting of the Pennines Township Committee to be held in the Training and Conference Suite on the first floor at the Council offices, Number One Riverside, Smith Street, Rochdale, on Tuesday, 26h May 2015, commencing at 6.15pm.
The agenda and supporting papers for the meeting 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 Deputies or staff in the Governance and Committee Services Team at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting.
Yours Faithfully
David Wilcock Head of Legal and Governance Reform
Pennines Township Committee Membership 2015/2016: - Councillor John Blundell Councillor Allen Brett Councillor Neil Butterworth Councillor Robert Clegg Councillor Ashley Dearnley Councillor Janet Emsley Councillor John Hartley Councillor Aftab Hussain Councillor Andy Kelly Councillor Amna Mir Councillor Rina Paolucci Councillor Ann Stott JP
Rochdale Borough Council
PENNINES TOWNSHIP COMMITTEE
Tuesday, 26 th May 2015 at 6.15 pm
Training and Conference Suite, First Floor, Number One Riverside, Smith Street, Rochdale, OL16 1XU
A G E N D A
Apologies for Absence 1. Appointment of the Chair of Pennines Township Committee - 2015/2016 2. Appointment of the Vice Chair of Pennines Township Committee - 2015/2016 3. Declarations of Interest 1 - 3 Members must indicate at this stage any items on the agenda in which they must declare an interest. Members must verbally give notice of their interest at the meeting and complete the form attached with this agenda.
Members are also advised to take advice with regard to any matter where there is potential bias or predetermination in any business to be considered at the meeting and whether they should take part in decision making at the meeting.
Members are reminded that, in accordance with the Localism Act 2011 and the Council's adopted Code of Conduct, they must declare the nature of any discloseable pecuniary interest; personal interest and/or prejudicial interest required of them and, in the case of any discloseable pecuniary interest or prejudicial interest, withdraw from the meeting during consideration of the item, unless permitted otherwise within the Code of Conduct. 4. Open Forum Half an hour has been set aside for members of the public to raise any issues relevant to the business of the Committee and the Township. 5. Greater Manchester Police - Update 6. Minutes 4 - 6 To consider the minutes of the meeting of the Pennines Township Committee held on 3 rd March 2015. 7. Pennines Township Delegated and Funding Sub Committee 7 - 9 To note the minutes of meeting of the Pennines Township Delegated and Funding Sub Committee held on 11 th March 2015.
8. Pennines Township Planning Sub Committee 10 - 12 To note the minutes of the meeting of the Pennines Township Planning Sub-Committee held on 19 th February and 18 th March 2015. 9. Durn Development Brief - Final 13 - 39 10. Pennines Township Funds 2015/16 40 - 68 11. Pennines Township Delegation Arrangements 2015/16 69 - 73 12. Pennines Township Committee – Appointments 2015/16 74 - 77
Page 1 Page
Agenda Item 3
DECLARATION OF INTERESTS
IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CODE OF CONDUCT ADOPTED BY THE COUNCIL ON 25 TH JULY 2012, MEMBERS ARE REQUIRED TO DECLARE DISCLOSABLE PECUNIARY INTERESTS, PERSONAL INTERESTS AND PREJUDICIAL INTERESTS (LISTED ON THEIR REGISTER OF INTERESTS).
MEMBERS SHOULD REFER TO THE CODE OF CONDUCT AND/OR THE MONITORING OFFICER AND/OR THEIR DECLARATION FOR FURTHER GUIDANCE
MEETING AND DATE Indicate either Nature of Interest • Discloseable Pecuniary Interest OR ……………………………. • Personal Interest OR • Personal and Prejudicial interest Agenda item
Page 2 Page
Signed………………………………………………………………………………………… Please print name…………………………………………………………………………………………..
IF A MEMBER HAS A DISCLOSEABLE PECUNIARY INTEREST THAT HAS NOT BEEN INCLUDED ON THEIR REGISTER SUBMISSION, THEY ARE REQUIRED BY LAW TO UPDATE THEIR REGISTER ENTRY WITHIN 28 DAYS. FAILURE TO PROVIDE PROPER NOTIFICATION IS A CRIMINAL OFFENCE.
THIS FORM, INCLUDING ‘NIL’ ENTRIES, MUST BE GIVEN TO THE GOVERNANCE AND COMMITTEE OFFICER NO LATER THAN AT THE END OF THE MEETING Summary of discloseable pecuniary interests, personal interests and prejudicial interests.
Disclosable pecuniary interests A ‘disclosable pecuniary interest’ is an interest of yourself, or of your partner if you are aware of your partner's interest, within the descriptions set out in the table below. "Partner" means a spouse or civil partner, or a person with whom you are living as husband or wife, or a person with whom you are living as if you are civil partners.
Subject Description Employment, office, Any employment, office, trade, profession or vocation carried on for profit trade, profession or or gain vocation Sponsorship Any payment or provision of any other financial benefit (other than from the Council) made or provided within the 12 month period prior to notification of the interest in respect of any expenses incurred by you in carrying out duties as a member, or towards your election expenses. Contracts Any contract made between you or your partner (or a body in which you or your partner has a beneficial interest) and the Council - (a) under which goods or services are to be provided or works are to be executed: and (b) which has not been fully discharged. Land Any beneficial interest in land which is within the area of the Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council. Licences Any licence (alone or jointly with others) to occupy land in the area of the Borough for a month or longer. Corporate Tenancies Any tenancy where (to your knowledge) - (a) the landlord is the Council: and (b) the tenant is a body in which you or your partner has a beneficial interest. Securities Any beneficial interest in securities of a body where - (a) that body (to your knowledge) has a place of business or land in the area of the Borough; and (b) either – (i) the total nominal value of the securities exceeds £25,000 or one hundredth of the total issued share capital of that body; or (ii) if the share capital of that body is of more than one class, the total nominal value of the shares of any one class in which you or your partner has a beneficial interest exceeds one hundredth of the total issued share capital of that class.
Personal Interests You have a personal interest in any business of the authority where it relates to or is likely to affect - (a) any body of which you are in a position of general control or management and to which you are appointed or nominated by your authority; (b) any body - (i) exercising functions of a public nature; (ii) directed to charitable purposes; or (iii) one of whose principal purposes includes the influence of public opinion or policy (including any political party or trade union), of which you are in a position of general control or management; (c) the interests of any person from whom you have received a gift or hospitality with an estimated value of at least £25.
Prejudicial Interests Where you have a personal interest you also have a prejudicial interest in that business where the interest is one which a member of the public with knowledge of the relevant facts would reasonably regard as so significant that it is likely to prejudice your judgement of the public interest and where that business - (a) Affects your financial position or the financial position of a person or body described above; or (b) Relates to the determining of any approval, consent, licence, permission or registration in relation to you or any person or body described above.
MEMBERS ARE ADVISED TO REFER TO THE FULL DESCRIPTIONS CONTAINED IN THE COUNCIL’S CODE OF CONDUCT ADOPTED ON 25 TH JULY 2012. Page 3 Agenda Item 6
PENNINES TOWNSHIP COMMITTEE
MINUTES OF MEETING Tuesday, 3 rd March 2015
PRESENT: Councillor Hussain (In the Chair); Councillors Brett, Butterworth, Clegg, Darnbrough, Dearnley, Hartley, Rodgers and Stott
OFFICERS: P Gregory (Economy and Environment Directorate), J Taylor (Children's Directorate) Y Pickering, T Knight and C Denyer (Customers and Corporate Directorate)
ALSO IN ATTENDANCE: Inspector Pawson (GMP) R Duddell (RDA) and approximately 10 Members of the public
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE: Councillors Blundell, Emsley and Mir
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST 68 There were no declarations of interest
COUNCILLOR JOHN BLUNDELL 69 The Committee congratulated Councillor John Blundell following the announcement that he had been shortlisted for the 2015 Councillor Achievement Awards in the Young Councillor of the Year category.
OPEN FORUM (6.15-6.45PM) 70 The following matter was raised in the Open Forum –
Greater Manchester Police
Inspector Niall Pawson (Greater Manchester Police) and Yvonne Pickering (Community Safety Officer) updated the Township Committee on the crime statistics for the Township.
Particular reference was made to efforts and initiatives to counter burglaries, anti- social behaviour, and crime associated with the Metrolink and the Police had achieved some successes in this regard.
The Committee raised concerns with regard to various issues which they requested that the Police to give attention to. These issues included:- Enforcement of the ’No Right Turn’ onto Ladyhouse Lane in Milnrow Speeding vehicles on Huddersfield road Problems with dog fouling on various streets in the Township
Parking Problems on Brook Street and West Street Littleborough
Questions were raised by several local residents with regard to parking and anti- social behaviour issues in the Brook Street and West Street area of Littleborough associated with a Public House situated on Huddersfield Road which were causing concern for residents. The residents requested the Township’s advice on the best way to tackle the problems of cars parking inconsiderately on the un-adopted roads.
The residents were advised to report anti- social behaviour incidents to the Police so enable them to investigate the issues further. The Director of Economy and
Page 4 Environment undertook to report on the options available to the residents to alleviate the parking problems to a future meeting of the Pennines Township Committee.
Property Lettings at Hollingworth Lake
A question was raised by Mr M Topham, a local resident, with regard to the letting of the vacant properties at Hollingworth Lake. In response the Director for Economy and Environment Service informed the Committee that the legal process for finalising the letting of the properties was expected to be completed imminently. Elected Members also raised concerns at the length of the time the properties had remained vacant causing a loss of revenue and amenity to the Township.
MINUTES 71 DECIDED – That the minutes of the meeting of the Pennines Township Committee held on 6 th January 2015, be approved as a correct record.
PENNINES TOWNSHIP PLANNING SUB COMMITTEE 72 DECIDED – That the minutes of the meetings of Pennines Township Planning Sub-Committee held on the 17 th December 2014 and 14 th January 2015 be noted.
TOWN CENTRE EAST DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS - PRESENTATION 73 The Township Committee received a presentation from Richard Duddell of the Rochdale Development Agency which advised of the proposals for the emerging plans for Rochdale's proposed new town centre retail and leisure development. The presentation included details the initial proposals for the site following the public consultation period which had ended on 26 th February.
The Committee was informed that the Cabinet would be requested to endorse the development framework at the meeting scheduled to be held on 23 rd March 2015.
DECIDED – That the presentation be noted and welcomed.
PENNINES TOWNSHIP NON-REGULATED CAR PARKS 74 The Committee considered the report of the Director of Economy and Environment Services which sought approval of the recommended courses of action relating to the future of the non-regulated car parks managed by the Pennines Township Committee.
At its meeting on 6 th January 2015 the Pennines Township Committee considered a report advising of a decision of the Cabinet that the non-regulated car parks within the Township should be managed by the Township Committee. Members requested a report on the possible options for the future management or disposal of these car parks.
The car parks had been considered for their potential for disposal or letting to third parties and officers were of the view that all the car parks may have potential for disposal on the open market and possibly for development. Members were asked to consider the course of action for each car park and to comment on the present value of each car park to the local communities affected, and to decide whether they were willing to consider alternative uses.
Alternatives considered - Members could decide to retain the car parks in their existing use or to reject the officer’s recommendations, in respect of each individual site, to either review an asset’s status or to retain it in its existing use. If these
Page 5 options were followed the Pennines Township would be responsible for meeting all management costs and liabilities for assets retained in their existing use.
DECIDED – that (1) Edmund Street Car Park be considered for disposal or re- letting of part and; (2) Dale Street, Whittles Yard, Haugh Square, Wardle Road, Wardle Fold Box Street and Peel Street car parks be retained in their current use.
Eligible for Call In - Yes
ROYAL STREET, ROCHDALE 75 The Township Committee considered a report of the Director of Economy and Environment which advised Members of objections received to a proposed introduction of ‘No Waiting At Any Time’ restrictions on parts of Royal Street and Spring Mill Walk, Rochdale in Smallbridge & Firgrove Ward.
The recommendation was presented to enable Members to give consideration to the objections received and, in light of the objections, whether or not the published proposals should be implemented.
Alternatives considered: The alternative to the proposal laid out in the report would be to continue without any restrictions on the highway at the junction of Royal Street and Spring Mill Walk by not introducing the proposed Traffic Regulation Order. The Committee was asked to note that the proposed Traffic Regulation Order was introduced as a consequence of indiscriminate parking at the junction concerned which affected goods vehicle access to industrial premises, driver visibility and road safety. To address the issue it was necessary to introduce the proposed order.
The Director of Economy and Environment reported upon objections received to the proposals.
DECIDED – that the Borough of Rochdale ((Civil Enforcement of Traffic Contraventions) (Various Streets) (Pennines Township) Order 2008) (Amendment) (No. 49) Order, be implemented as advertised.
Eligible For Call In - Yes
Page 6 Agenda Item 7
PENNINES TOWNSHIP DELEGATED AND FUNDING SUB COMMITTEE
MINUTES OF MEETING Wednesday, 11 th March 2015
PRESENT: Councillor Aftab Hussain (In the Chair); Councillors Blundell, Brett, Clegg, Darnbrough, Dearnley, Emsley, Hartley, Mir and Stott
OFFICERS: P Gregory and J Butterworth (Economy and Environment Directorate), T Knight and C Denyer (Customers and Corporate Directorate)
ALSO IN ATTENDANCE: Approximately 16 Members of the public
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE: Councillors Butterworth and Rodgers
ADDITIONAL ITEM OF BUSINESS 11 In accordance with Council procedure rules, the Chair indicated an additional item of business would be considered on the grounds of urgency, namely the Pennines Clean and Green Fund as the work is required to be undertaken during the spring in order to be most effective.
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST 12 Councillor Darnborough declared a personal interest in the application from the Pennines in Bloom Group for Revenue Funding (PF/17/14), contained within agenda item 3 – Pennines Township Funds 2014/2015, insofar as she is involved with the Group.
Councillor Darnborough declared a personal interest in the application from the Wardle Anderson Band for Revenue Funding (PF/19/14), contained within agenda item 3 – Pennines Township Funds 2014/2015, insofar as she is a Governor at Wardle Academy
Councillor Dearnley declared a personal interest in the application from the Wardle Anderson Band for Revenue Funding (PF/19/14), contained within agenda item 3 – Pennines Township Funds 2014/2015, insofar as he is involved with the Band.
Councillor Emsley declared a both a Personal and a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest in the application from the Wardle Anderson Band for Revenue Funding (PF/19/14), contained within agenda item 3 – Pennines Township Funds 2014/2015, insofar as she is Director of Performing Arts at Wardle Academy.
Councillor Stott declared a personal interest in the application from the Pennines in Bloom Group for Revenue Funding (PF/17/14), contained within agenda item 3 – Pennines Township Funds 2014/2015, insofar as she is involved with the Group.
MINUTES 13 DECIDED – That the minutes of the meeting held on 26 th November 2014, be approved as a correct record.
PENNINES TOWNSHIP FUNDS 2014/15 14 The Interim Director for Corporate and Customers Services introduced a report which updated Members on the revenue and capital expenditure, commitments and balances of the Pennines Township Funds 2014/ 15 to enable the Committee to allocate funds to proposed projects.
Page 7 The recommendations contained within the report were presented as management of the Pennines Township Fund is a function delegated to the Pennines Township Delegated and Funding Sub Committee. Pennines Township Funds are allocated to projects/schemes that benefit the Township’s community and environment, and realise the Township priorities. The report enabled the Sub-Committee to monitor and review the use of the Pennines Township Funds to ensure continued efficient and effective use of Township Funds.
The Committee considered applications for funding from the 2014/2015 Township Revenue and Capital Funds and the balances of £36,780 (Capital Fund) and £67,155 (Revenue Fund) were detailed in the submitted report.
Alternatives considered: in considering the report, Members will decide whether or not to approve the allocation of funds to projects/schemes as appropriate.
The Director for Economy and Environment provided an update on the feasibility study undertaken into the provision of footway at Rakewood Road/ Hollingworth Lake, Littleborough.
DECIDED – That (1) the expenditure, commitments and balances of Pennines Township Revenue and Capital funds as detailed in the appendices 1 and 2 be noted; (2) the decisions made under delegated authority as detailed in appendix 3 be noted; (3) the summaries of evaluation information for projects funded as detailed in Appendix 4, be noted; (4) the Principal Townships Officer has assessed proposed projects to be considered for funding against the criteria of the Pennines Township Fund, priorities of the Township and any specific risks have been identified be noted. (5) the Principal Townships Officer, in consultation with the Chair and Vice Chair be given delegated authority to make decisions on any deferred projects. (6) applications for assistance from the Pennines Township Revenue and Capital Funds, as detailed in Appendix 5 of the submitted report, be determined as follows: a) PEF/08/14 – Approve an allocation of £1,360 for the Big Games 2015 from the Pennines Township Events fund. b) PF/17/14 – Approve an allocation of £2,997.88 for the Pennines Summer Projects from the Pennines Township Projects Fund. c) PF/18/14 - the application for the funding of the Millbury Drive Fence be declined. d) PF/19/14 – Approve an allocation of £2,928.79 from the Pennines Township Projects Fund for Storage facilities for Wardle Anderson Band subject to the granting of any required planning approvals. e) PF/22/14 - Hollingworth Road Car Park Barrier be deferred to a future meeting of the Sub-Committee pending consultation with the Director of Economy and Environment in relation to the responsibility for the maintenance of the Barrier f) PF/23/14 – Approve an allocation of £1,000 to the Minrow Morris Troupe to compete in the Annual Morris Dancing Championships 2015 from the Pennines Township Projects Fund g) PF/25/14 - the application for the funding of the Walmsley Avenue Street Lighting Column be declined and the Chief Executive be requested to refer the problem of the siting of the street lighting columns to E.ON. h) PF/26/14 – Approve an allocation of £18,000 from the Pennines Township Projects Fund towards the cost of the creation of a footpath on Rakewood
Page 8 Road and the Director of Economy and Environment be requested to consider the use of Section 106 monies in the funding of the scheme. i) PF/14/11 – Rakewood Road Lighting Columns be deferred pending a response from E.ON as to the reason for the delay in commencing the work approved on the 12st February 2012 which has resulted in an increase in the cost. j) PF/27/14 - Starring Way Road Markings be deferred for consideration for inclusion in the Capital and Highway Investment Programme for 2015-16 . k) PF/29/14 – Approve an allocation of £25,000 to Wardle FC Club House from the Pennines Township Projects Fund. l) PF/30/14 – Approve an allocation of £864.85 for the Increasing the reach of the Littleborough Rushcart project from the Pennines Township Projects Fund. m) PF/31/14 – Approve an allocation of £2,000 for the trial scheme on the Calder Avenue Grass Verges from the Pennines Township Projects Fund. n) PTC/07/14 - Broom Street Improvements be deferred for consideration for inclusion in the Capital and Highway Investment Programme for 2015-16. o) PTC/16/14 – Approve an allocation of £25,000 for the provision of the Milnrow Library Fire Escape from the Pennines Township Capital Fund.
NOTE: In accordance with Council procedure rules Councillor Brett requested his vote to reject the application for funding of the Pennines Summer projects be recorded.
Eligible for Call In - Yes
PENNINES CLEAN & GREEN FUND 15 The Interim Director for Corporate and Customers Services introduced a report which requested that Members agree to the allocation of £55,000 to Pennines Township for environmental improvements to be used to commission a dedicated Clean & Green Team for a period of 23.5 weeks.
The Committee noted that at the Council meeting held on 24 th February 2015, the Leader of the Council had announced an allocation of £250,000 was to be made to the Townships from April 2015 in order to address environmental issues identified by each Township. The amount allocated to each Township was based on the percentage of population in line with the Township Revenue funds.
In discussion the Committee raised an issue regarding the monitoring of the work undertaken by the Clean and Green Team and requested that the Chair and Vice Chair be informed on a fortnightly basis of the work completed by the Team.
DECIDED – That (1) the funding of a dedicated Clean & Green Team for a period of 23.5 weeks be agreed and; (2) the Director of Economy and Environment be requested to notify the Chair and Vice Chair at least every two weeks of the work completed by the Clean and Green Team.
Eligible for Call in - Yes
Page 9 Agenda Item 8
PENNINES TOWNSHIP PLANNING SUB COMMITTEE
MINUTES OF MEETING Thursday, 19 February 2015
PRESENT: Councillor Janet Emsley (Chair); Councillors Brett, Clegg, Darnbrough, Hartley, Mir, Rodgers and Stott
OFFICERS: D Ripa and L Houghton (Economy and Environment) and S Walter- Browne (Customers and Corporate)
ALSO IN ATTENDANCE: Approximately 12 members of the public
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE: None
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST 42 Councillor Brett and Councillor Rodgers declared personal interests in application 14/01347/FUL.
MINUTES 43 The minutes of the meeting held on 14 th January 2015 were agreed, subject to the inclusion of a statement that Councillor Hartley had requested that his vote against the application be noted.
CHANGE OF USE AND CONVERSION OF OUTBUILDING INTO DWELLING 44 The Director of Economy and Environment reported on submitted planning application 14/01347/FUL for the change of use and conversion of an outbuilding into a dwelling at Oakdene, 5 Higher Ogden, Ogden Lane, Newhey. This was a resubmission of application 13/01327/FUL.
The Committee were addressed by Mr Fitton, on behalf of the objectors, and Mr Percy, the agent for the applicant.
DECIDED:- to adjourn further consideration of this application to a subsequent meeting, for a strategy to be submitted to the Committee by the applicant covering sewage, water, drainage and other services to be provided to the proposed new dwelling.
DEMOLITION OF EXISTING BUILDINGS AND ERECTION OF THREE DETACHED DWELLINGS 45 The Director of Economy and Environment reported on submitted planning application 14/01428/FUL for the demolition of the existing buildings and erection of three detached dwellings on land off Todmorden Road Summit, Littleborough.
There were no objectors present and the Committee were addressed by Mr Percy, the agent for the applicant.
DECIDED:- 1) Members requested that amendments be made to the layout of the scheme and the design of the garages. Agreement of these amendments was delegated to officers.
2) The Committee were minded to approve the application and the decision would be referred to the Licensing and Regulatory Committee in accordance with the Council’s Scheme of Delegation.
Page 10
PLANNING APPEALS 46 The Committee noted that two planning appeals had been lodged.
Page 11 Public Document Pack
PENNINES TOWNSHIP PLANNING SUB COMMITTEE
MINUTES OF MEETING Wednesday, 18 March 2015
PRESENT: Councillor Janet Emsley (Chair); Councillors Clegg, Darnbrough, Hartley, Mir, Rodgers and Stott
OFFICERS: D Ripa (Economy and Environment) and S Walter-Browne (Customers and Corporate)
ALSO IN ATTENDANCE: 2 members of the public
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE: Councillor Brett
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST 47 There were no declarations of interest.
MINUTES 48 The minutes of the meeting held on 19 th February 2015 were agreed.
APPLICATION FOR WORKS TO TWO TREES AND REQUEST TO FELL ONE TREE 49 The Director of Economy and Environment reported on submitted planning application 15/00114/WCTA, an application for works to two trees and a request to fell one tree within the Butterworth Hall (Municipal Buildings) Conservation Area.
DECIDED:- to grant the application
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OF ONE THREE-STOREY BLOCK OF 14 APARTMENTS AND 29 DWELLING HOUSES 50 The Director of Economy and Environment reported on submitted planning application 10/D52825, for the residential development of a three-storey block of 14 apartments and 29 dwelling houses, on the site of the former Frankfort Mill, Halifax Road, Littleborough.
15 objections had been received, including additional comments concerning the existence of other developments in the area and highways implications. The Committee were informed that the highways implications had been recognised and there were proposals in relation to junction improvements. Whilst there are other developments, the housing is still very much needed. There had also been a comment concerning the status of the Co-op as a listed building. Whilst this building forms part of the Heritage Trail, it is not listed.
There were no objectors present and the agent for the applicant addressed the Committee.
DECIDED:- That planning permission be approved subject to 1) the conditions as detailed within the submitted report, and 2) a further condition, that all facings visible from Halifax Road must be stone.
PLANNING APPEALS 51 The Committee noted that one Planning Appeal had been lodged and one withdrawn.
Page 12 Agenda Item 9
l
Subject: Durn Development Brief - Final Status: For Publication
Report to : Pennines Township Committee Date: Tuesday, 26 May 2015
Cabinet Member: Councillor Cecile Biant
Report of: Director of Economy & Environment Author : Wayne Poole
Author Email: Tel: Tel: 01706 924373 [email protected]
Comments from Statutory Monitoring Officer: Yes Officers: Section 151 Officer: Yes Key Decision:
1. PURPOSE OF REPORT
1.1 To approve a final Development Brief for an area at Durn, Littleborough to guide decisions on any planning applications for the site. The final brief (Appendix 2) has been sent electronically and paper copies are available on request.
2. RECOMMENDATIONS
2.1 Committee notes the comments received following consultation on the draft brief and the changes made as a result and approves the final development brief (aims, objectives and planning requirements) for the Durn area.
2.3 Committee allows any minor wording / presentational changes to be made to the brief if required before publication.
2.2 Committee reaffirms its in-principle approval to dispose of the Council’s land, shown as Plot 4 and most of Plot 2 on Figure 1 within the planning brief (Appendix 2), in order to achieve the purposes set out in the brief.
3. MAIN TEXT INCLUDING ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED/ CONSULTATION CARRIED OUT
Background
3.1 The site to which this development brief relates is the land which lies to the east and west of the Rochdale Canal at Durn (a plan and detailed description of the site is included in the brief). This area has long been identified as a development opportunity and as such was designated as an Area of Opportunity (policy R/4b) within the Unitary Development Plan (UDP) which
Version Number: Page: 1 of 13
Page 13 was adopted in 2006. The site has also been identified within the Council’s Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment as having the potential to deliver additional homes. Despite these designations and approval of planning permission for residential development on land to the west of the canal the site as a whole has remained undeveloped. The site is predominately vacant, apart from a plant hire business and two small workshops.
Purpose of development brief
3.2 It is considered that the site presents a significant opportunity to provide a high quality development in a strategic location. The purpose of the development brief is to set out the potential redevelopment of this site in a linked and coordinated manner so to deliver a high quality scheme which maximises its sustainable, canal side location. Such a development would not only enhance the canal corridor but would add to the tourism and visitor economy of the wider area.
Scope and content of the brief
3.3 The Development Brief provides
• A background to the site • An overview of the known and potential site constraints • A summary of the planning context – including planning history and relevant planning policies • Options for the redevelopment of the site • An indication of the further work required to help to bring the site to the market
3.4 The main constraints in relation to delivering a comprehensive scheme seem to relate to ownership and access. Other than two small workshops on the western edge of the site, the remainder of the site is formed by four distinct parcels, shown in Figure 1 of the brief (Appendix 2). Two of these parcels are in Council ownership. Of the remaining two, the land to the west of the canal was the subject of a successful planning application by Brierstone properties to build 43 dwellings. The remaining parcel is currently occupied by a plant hire firm. The brief sets out the advantages of bringing forward a comprehensive scheme, but acknowledges that the land to the west of the canal could be brought forward independently given that it would utilise a separate access. The aspiration remains however to secure a comprehensive regeneration scheme through engagement with all relevant parties, albeit it is accepted that this will require the agreement of all the parties.
3.5 In terms of access the main issue relates to accessing the eastern part of the development off Halifax Road. As the brief identifies, this is likely to require the acquisition of third party land in order to improve Shore Hill (main access) and Schofield Street (secondary access).
3.6 In terms of planning policy context, policy R/4 (b) of the UDP sets out the main policy requirements relating to the development of this Area of Opportunity. Particularly important are the elements of this policy which seek to ensure that any proposal maximises the opportunities presented by the canal side location, including the tourism benefits and the need for a high quality design. Also relevant is the more recent national planning policy context. The National Planning Policy Framework promotes sustainable development and
Version Number: Page: 2 of 13
Page 14 encourages proposals which boost the supply of housing. The Council’s emerging Core Strategy and any subsequent Neighbourhood Plan or other development plan document for the area which may be adopted by the Council to guide future development would need to adhere to these national planning policy principles.
3.7 Section 4 of the brief (Appendix 2) sets out the main issues to consider in terms of the redevelopment of the site, including the opportunities and matters which need to be taken into account. This covers the following:
• The proposed scheme and mix of uses; • The need to deliver a comprehensive scheme for the site in order to maximise its value; • The key design issues to be taken into account in the development of a scheme; • Specific canal related issues which any proposal will need to consider. This includes how the development relates to canal and ecological considerations; and • Specific details in terms of access arrangements and their implications.
3.8 In considering the requirements for any proposed scheme and the acceptable mix of uses, the brief seeks to consider current market issues in applying the requirements set out in policy R/4 (b) of the UDP. This section of the brief therefore reflects a slightly more flexible approach to the redevelopment of this site in terms of the range of uses expected. In summary the principal focus of the brief is to help deliver a well-designed residential led scheme which incorporates appropriate and viable mooring facilities. It is considered that this is more likely to facilitate a deliverable scheme whilst still ensuring that any proposal makes the most of its canal side location close to Littleborough town centre.
Alternatives considered
3.9 Not producing a development brief for this site may mean that it remains vacant for a longer period of time and / or the quality of any scheme which comes forward for planning consent does not meet the Council’s aspirations for the site.
Consultation proposed/undertaken
3.10 Consultation on a draft version of the brief took place between 11 November 2014 and 12 January 2015. The written comments received along with responses and changes made as a result are shown at Appendix 1. In addition, informal discussions were held with owners of private land included within the area of the brief.
3.11 There were a number of issues raised during the consultation and these can be summarised as follows:
• Most comments related to access and car parking. There were concerns that creating appropriate access into the site would have an impact on the amenity of existing residents. There were also concerns about highway safety and speeding traffic on the A58;
Version Number: Page: 3 of 13
Page 15 • Some respondents considered that there was not enough emphasis on the aspiration to deliver a marina in this location. However some other respondents stated that mooring facilities would be better positioned at Ealees; • There were some comments on the fact that the brief allows for a residential led development and questioned the need for additional homes in Littleborough; • The need to retain existing trees within the site was considered important; • Reference to the displacement of existing businesses within the site and concerns that this could result in a loss of jobs; and • Some respondents suggested that development would be better directed towards the site at Ealees.
3.12 As a result of the comments received and to address other issues some changes have been made to the draft brief to produce this final version. These changes can be summarised as follows:
• Greater emphasis on the need for any proposal to include consultation and engagement with local residents in relation to access and car parking arrangements in order to minimise impact on local amenity; • Include reference to the fact that the provision of a marina in this area is supported by local interest groups; • In the design section of the brief include reference to the need for good quality landscaping and where appropriate retain existing trees; • Include text which promotes the relocation of any displaced businesses within the borough; and • General changes to bring the brief up to date and clarify specific issues e.g. planning position on the land to the west of the canal, reference to the National Planning Policy Framework etc.
4. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
4.1 There are no financial implications as a result of producing the brief. It has been prepared in house within existing budgets
4.2 Refreshing the brief will assist in bringing forward Council land for disposal and development, for which a capital receipt will be generated.
5. LEGAL IMPLICATIONS
5.1 There are no specific legal implications as a result of producing the brief. The brief takes account of and gives further detail on the application of statutorily adopted development plan policies for this site.
5.2 Any planning applications for the development of all or parts of the site would need to be determined on their planning merits and against relevant local and national planning policies applicable at that time.
6. PERSONNEL IMPLICATIONS
6.1 There are no specific personnel implications relating to this report.
Version Number: Page: 4 of 13
Page 16 7. CORPORATE PRIORITIES
7.1 The development of this previously developed site would be in accordance with the general priorities as set out in Aiming High and its Vision and Blueprint for prosperity, people and place.
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 equality/community issues arising from this report.
Background Papers Document Place of Inspection
Version Number: Page: 5 of 13
Page 17 APPENDIX 1 – SCHEDULE OF COMMENTS RECEIVED ON DRAFT DEVELOPMENT BRIEF
Name & Full comment received Council response Changes to be made organisation
Iain Spencer Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the above. The brief seeks to reiterate the requirements Stronger reference to the Gerrard - set out in the policy balanced against a need local support / aspiration Littleborough We are disappointed at the thrust of the arguments contained within the brief. to consider current issues and planning for a marina within the site Civic Trust These, in essence, promote yet more development of housing which the town guidance. to be included in the brief. does not want nor has any need of. This approach appears to be explained by the need to ensure that a marina is properly funded. While we are keen to In terms of viability and deliverability a Emphasise the need for promote the idea of a marina within Littleborough we are not convinced that this residential led scheme which maximises its any proposal to address can only be achieved through surcharges on new housing; indeed the number location and provides mooring facilities the issue of parking and of houses which would be needed to achieve this would be enormous and we appears to be the most appropriate way access through appropriate think it is unrealistic. forward. engagement and
Page 18 Page consultation with existing We understand that for a marina to be economically viable it would require Taking account that this is a brownfield site residents. berthing for a hundred boats or so along with all the necessary provision of within the urban area in a sustainable repair and maintenance facilities, shops relating to boating requirements, location it would be difficult resist residential services such as waste removal, water supplies etc. In addition there would be development. What the brief seeks to do is considerable advantage from Littleborough’s point of view and its tourism ensure that the opportunity to maximise the potential if there was space for a boating holiday company and its berthing value of this site having regard to the requirements. It appears to us that with the approach outlined in your draft aspirations of adopted UDP policy is not lost. report we will end up with a substandard marina of small proportions which will not be large enough to be economically viable. The brief sets out the potential for compensatory off-street parking as part of Should it be necessary to find alternative funding in order to create a good any scheme in order to promote safe access marina we feel that this should be the starting point for your proposals and not into and out of the site thus improving the tail end requirement after the building of many houses have failed to supply highway safety. sufficient monies. The permission has lapsed but the principal The returns of the questionnaire put out by the Littleborough Neighbourhood of residential development of this site has Forum recently, while not yet fully analysed, appear to be giving a clear been demonstrated through the previous indication that the people of Littleborough are not in favour of further speculative application which the Council was minded to housing development. The latest publication of the Strategic Housing Market approve. As this proposal does not displace Assessment appears to back this opinion as, with the exception of the any existing on-street parking it would be identification of a number of small one- and two-bedroom affordable houses, difficult to require part of the site to be set there is no need for yet more larger ones. aside for this purpose.
It is worth pointing out that there is a situation at the lower end of Halifax Road The issue of a marina is addressed within where continuous permanent parking has been allowed to develop over the the brief and any proposal would have to
Name & Full comment received Council response Changes to be made organisation
years creating a bottle-neck in what is still a major road into the town and which demonstrate that options for including a is potentially dangerous to road users whether in a car, on a bike or on foot. marina had been properly considered. Accommodating these vehicles off the road would be a worthwhile use of part of site no. 1.
As the present approval for this site has lapsed in time and indeed does not appear to have been completed legally as the 106 agreement was never agreed, there is a good opportunity to look again at this part. It may not be a site which could be used as a major part of the marina, it being divided from sites 2 to 4 by the canal, but it does give an opportunity to use at least a part of it for car parking. In addition to its use as parking for visitors who may be holidaying on canal boats based at the marina, it could also serve to remove the hazardous parking by local residents referred to above; a solution has to be found which does not ruin the situation for those residents. Page 19 Page The best position for any marina is at the southern end of the area nearest to Halifax Road and which is reasonably level. Any housing positioned here (clearly your idea of where it should go) would use up the best land and push the marina northward into the green belt where there would have to be significantly greater land reshaping and huge extra cost. We realise that tourism projects can legitimately be built within green belt under certain circumstances but to rely upon this is felt to show a cynical approach which is not worthy of good planning.
Alison Truman - I can confirm that the Canal & River Trust is supportive of the content of the Support is noted. The appropriate changes References to ‘Canal and Canal & River draft brief, particularly in respect of the need for development to be of a design will be made to references in the document River Trust’ to be changed Trust quality appropriate to its canal-side setting, and for any potential impacts on the as requested. to ‘Canal & River Trust’. SAC and SSSI to be fully assessed and mitigated. The Trust also supports the approach set out in relation to the provision of either on-line visitor moorings or a marina either within or adjacent to the area of opportunity.
On a minor point we would ask that any references to the Canal & River Trust include the “&” rather than the word “and”, as this how the name of the registered charity should appear.
Please let me know if we can be of any further assistance in finalising the brief or in future discussions with potential developers of the site.
Name & Full comment received Council response Changes to be made organisation
Cathie Cox - I have been a resident since 1987 at 40 Halifax Road, on the opposite side of This site is in private ownership. The Edit background within the Resident the road from the area under consideration. So I am very familiar with the area previously submitted application has recently brief to set out the latest and how it is currently occupied and used. been reactivated and is currently being position regarding the land Site 1 considered. It is therefore hoped that some to the west of the canal. progress can be made in bringing this site Site 1 was the subject of several (amended) planning applications in the past forward Emphasise the fact that and development started. But it has been abandoned for some years now and site assembly should be is an eyesore. I think the council should give priority to finding a developer to The brief sets out an aspiration for a marina based on negotiation with complete this site in accordance with planning guidelines already established. but acknowledges that there may be issues landowner to reduce in terms of viability. disruption and as far as Sites 2,3, and 4 possible retain businesses The point regarding moorings is agreed. The within the borough You suggest establishing a marina on some part of these sites. Whilst this is an brief seeks to ensure some mooring facilities Page 20 Page attractive idea, I question whether it is commercially viable (or “sustainable” in in order to accommodate canal users and Add some reference to modern jargon). The amount of traffic along the canal is not huge and there is promote Littleborough as a destination on landscaping and retaining no evidence that a fully fledged marina (definition: a boat basin that has docks, the canal. trees within the section on moorings, supplies, and other facilities for small boats) would attract sufficient Design issues use to make it pay. If a marina is considered viable in Little borough, then a far It is anticipated that any scheme would come better situation would be at the back of Littleborough station on the canalside forward through negotiation with existing See previous comment re adjacent to Station Street. There is a plot of land here owned by Boyes which landowners, with any businesses located engagement required on has already been subject to a planning application (relating I think to the whole elsewhere within the borough access / parking issues site) for mixed residential, commercial and leisure use. Boats already moor here quite frequently and it is near the centre of the village. Industrial or commercial uses would not be in accordance with the plan policy and may I suggest that any development of the sites 2, 3 and 4 should just consider create issues in terms of traffic and larger linear mooring facilities, not anything more elaborate. And it is right to say that vehicles. there is already an embryo dock on the canal to the north of the sites, which might provide some additional mooring, as well as the canalside. Local plan policies seek to retain existing trees where practicable. It may be Development would depend on acquisition of site three from Mechplant. As this appropriate to add some wording in the brief is a business which provides jobs, I trust their losing this site would not impact to encourage new development to adversely on local employment opportunities. It could however do with some incorporate natural landscaping. screening from the canalside - shrubbery or trees.
The sites have been subject to industrial use in the past, and I do not see why Any proposal would have to ensure light industry or other commercial uses for the sites should not be considered, appropriate and safe access into and out of subject to appropriate landscaping. the site. Shore Hill has been identified as being the most appropriate access point but If the sites are developed, thought should be given to retaining as many of the clearly would need improvement. Any
Name & Full comment received Council response Changes to be made organisation
tress already growing there (particularly on site 2) as possible, especially those impact on exiting land and properties would at the back of the existing houses on Halifax Road. These vastly improve what need to be properly considered through any could otherwise be a very bare landscape. scheme.
Access All the access points and the potential they offer as primary or secondary accesses I consider this is an issue. You suggest main access to the sites via a wider would have to be considered within any Shore Hill, involving the acquisition of land from 81 Halifax Road. This is a detailed scheme. residential home for the elderly and losing land may be detrimental to that use. Shore Hill is regularly used by bin lorries serving the home and much increased As noted above Local plan policies seek to traffic may mean some congestion. retain existing trees where practicable. It may be appropriate to add some wording in There is an alternative potential access next to 97A, leading directly to site 3, the brief to encourage new development to but I don’t know if there would be acquisition issues here. Access via incorporate natural landscaping. Page 21 Page Schofield Street is already in regular use by substantial traffic to and from the Mechplant site so perhaps priority should be given to this access.
If the land is acquired for residential development, I suggest that landscaping and retaining as many trees as possible is considered a priority in the planning process . Glyn Thomas - I am writing to express my opposition to the plans set out in the draft The brief notes that it may be necessary for See previous changes Resident development brief. any detailed scheme to incorporate relating to parking and compensatory parking if any on / off street access I am resident at 79 Halifax Road which is located on the corner of Halifax Road parking is lost as a result of the development and Shore Hill, the latter being the proposed main access to Sites 2, 3 & 4. and its associated access requirements.
My specific concerns are: The reference to parking could be further emphasised within the final brief. • Loss of parking amenity for myself and other local residents. The brief still uses the policy as a starting point in terms of the aspiration for this site. However, it acknowledges that the site has The nature of existing residential properties on Halifax Road and Shore not come forward and therefore some Hill (traditional terraced housing) means that all residents in the vicinity flexibility in terms of uses may be required. currently park along Halifax Road and Shore Hill ie; there is no off-road The brief is clear that a standard housing parking. New parking restrictions introduced on Halifax Road over the scheme which does not provide some past two years have already reduced available parking and the mooring facilities or respect the location of the site adjacent to the canal would not be proposals contained within the draft would seriously compound this
Name & Full comment received Council response Changes to be made organisation
problem. Residents would be forced to park further along Halifax Road accepted in both directions with consequent road safety issues. The proposed improvements to Shore Hill would also result in the loss of dedicated As noted previously any scheme will have to demonstrate appropriate access parking for staff and visitors of the Four Seasons residential care home arrangements which are safe and minimise (81 Halifax Road) putting further pressure on available parking. The as far as possible the impact on the amenity attached photos illustrate the current parking situation around Shore of existing residents Hill and the Halifax Road/Shore Hill junction.
I note that in section 4.19 consideration is made to this loss of parking for local residents and the possibility of providing alternative parking for existing residents. The principles for development set out in Policy
Page 22 Page R/4(b) also state that ‘Measures should be incorporated to safeguard the amenity and safety of residents within or adjoining the site’. Therefore if, despite my objection, the Council does adopt the development brief as set out in the draft I trust that they would insist on ample dedicated alternative parking for existing residents being incorporated in any planning application and for no consent to be granted without this.
• Loss of amenity and road safety issues resulting from the high volume of traffic on Shore Hill.
This does seem to be a residential led scheme and the statement at section 3.8 (b) that housing should be ‘primarily on land west of the canal’ doesn’t really stand up to examination. There would clearly be significant housing on the east side of the canal under your development brief and little regard appears to have been taken of R/4(b) which states that Development must include residential and visitor mooring facilities. Indeed the tone of the brief appears to steer a course for virtually wholesale housing development with limited linear moorings.
As Shore Hill would be the main access to Sites 2, 3 & 4 the volume of traffic, both residents and visitors, would be considerable. This is
Name & Full comment received Council response Changes to be made organisation
alluded to in section 4.17 which states that ‘there will need to be significant improvements to the junction to make is suitable for residential access’. As the side entrance to my property opens directly on to Shore Hill, with no garden/yard in-between, there would be a significant loss of residential amenity to me as well as potential road safety issues. In particular there would be massively increased traffic, much of which would be of a stop-start and traffic queue nature, would be noisy, polluting and visually unattractive. In the short term there would also be the issue of heavy, noisy construction traffic.
Thank you for the opportunity to contribute to this consultation. Should the proposal proceed to the planning stage then I look forward to receiving a copy of the planning application and at that stage I will consider whether to engage a Page 23 Page planning consultant to represent my position. In the meantime should you wish to discuss any of the issues I have raised please do not hesitate to contact me. (Note pictures were also provide in support of these comments) Stuart and We would like you to consider the following points regarding the above brief : The brief is clear in that any development of Could make specific Jackie the site would require significant reference to the need for Carmichael - 1. The builders of our property and those on Blackstone Edge Court requested improvements to existing access an ecological assessment Residents planning permission (30years ago approx) for 5 houses with access and egress arrangements. Presumably the previous to accompany any from Schofield Street. This was refused by the council on the grounds of too application was not considered acceptable subsequent planning much traffic being created in and out of Schofield Street, a street that has poor since it sought to just use an unimproved application. visibility onto Halifax Road. Hence the creation of Blackstone Edge Court, and Schofield Street to access the additional only 4 houses. So why 30 years later when traffic numbers have increased is it dwellings. See previous comments in alright to increase the amount of traffic accessing and egressing Schofield relation to parking and Street? The lack of traffic on the canal may in part be access. due to a lack of mooring facilities. What the Also in any access Scheme, it must be borne in mind that access will be brief seeks to do is strike a balance between required by very long and heavy vehicles (transporting boats, for example) and a realistic assessment of canal usage whist sufficient turning space will be required. seeking to ensure that appropriate opportunities to promote the value of the 2. Plans to develop the land in question were first mooted in 1992. We have the canal in this location are not lost. original plans. In those 22 years there has been occasional interest - council surveyors measuring up along Schofield Street. Nothing has happened, we Any proposal would have to be accompanied think, because so little canal traffic uses this stretch of the canal because of by a transport statement which would have water flow issues, the high frequency of navigation restrictions (the need to to cover issues such as road safety on any book passage through Tuel lock and Summit Pound) and the large number of new and existing roads.
Name & Full comment received Council response Changes to be made organisation
locks (31 ) between Todmorden and Littleborough. Those who use this stretch of the canal appear to travel no further than Canal Street or Smithy Bridge Given the nature of the site it is likely that an because of vandalism on further stretches of the canal towards Manchester. ecological assessment would have to Hence one would assume that no developer would want to take on something accompany any application and therefore that could/would be a' white elephant'. this would address issues such as roosting bats. Under the current economic climate we feel it would be inappropriate to continue the consultation, presumably using tax payers money, when Rochdale The brief identifies Shore Hill as the most Council has to make so many cuts! appropriate access point. Any detailed proposal would need to properly consider 3. We feel if the proposed development takes place then serious speed access arrangements and carry out any restrictions will have to be imposed on the A58, Halifax Road. As soon as most consultation / engagement required as a motorists come to Durn Bridge, from Littleborough they use Halifax Road as a result. Page 24 Page race track, this, we feel could lead to more accidents on this stretch of road as more traffic will be egressing Shore Hill, Schofield Street, and the road from the The land at Canal Street is identified as an proposed housing development (ex Brierstone) - three exits with poor sight lines Area of Opportunity for development which on a short stretch of road. If some speed restrictions are not imposed, and may also include uses and facilities which parking on the Halifax Road is removed between Durn Bridge and 81 Halifax contribute to the tourism value and leisure Road, we feel this will probably increase more speeding, thus the likeliness of use of the canal. more road traffic accidents.
4. Effect on wildlife if the proposed plans do go ahead. There are bats in the area probably roosting in Mechplant buildings and the buildings of site 4. These are a protected species.
5. We are concerned as to whether any of our property would be required for the widening of Schofield Street, especially if provision is to be made for a footpath at the side of the carriageway.
6. A more suitable location for the proposed development, should one be necessary, would be on Canal Street where most boats moor, plus they would have easier access to local amenities. Jonathan Baker Following on from the Durn/Littleborough development meeting I would like to The area covered by the brief was allocated - Resident tell you my concerns. I understand that the plot marked site 1 is already for development in the UDP which was approved for development. Sites 3 + 4 are being considered for the canal boat adopted in 2006. Therefore the principal of project and possibly a marina. Site 2 is my selfish concern. I know that 170 some development on this site has been in houses are to be built on the site of the old chemical works on the Littleborough place for a number of years. /Lake road. Combined with plot 1 of the Durn development this adds up to a lot of new houses.. and traffic.. congestion… strain on retail infrastructure.. Site 2 is The brief seeks to ensure that any
Name & Full comment received Council response Changes to be made organisation
my rear view on the world. I bought my house in Dec’ 2014.. not being development of this site would in some way overlooked when relaxing in the privacy of ones “garden” area was a priority. I contribute to the use of the canal and will object if plans are made to build on site 2. The whole of the Durn community therefore have some wider tourism benefits. have paid over market value for properties in order to enjoy the space and quiet here.
Why it is not a conservation/tourist area is beyond local comprehension. I have spoken to conveyancing solicitors who are also baffled by same.
How much would the council want for site 2 were a buyer to be seriously interested? John Kay - The Development brief was discussed at the meeting on Tuesday 20th January The brief does make reference to the Stronger reference to the Littleborough 2015 which was attended by Wayne Poole from RMBC aspiration for a marina at Durn. Given the local aspiration for a Canalside The following points were raised:- potential issues in terms of viability the brief marina within the site to be Page 25 Page Development sets this out in a way which means any included in the brief. Group 1. The old Littleborough UDC yard, plot 4 in Para 2.5 of the brief has proposal must demonstrate that the been identified as suitable for a working Marina as a winch could be possibility of a marina has been properly installed to bring narrow boats from the canal into the building for work considered. and maintenance. 2. Phase 1 of a Marina could be constructed adjoining this yard for It may be appropriate in the brief to clarify moorings in herring bone fashion for about 20 boats constructed a that the provision of a marina remains a local modest cost. aspiration for this site. 3. The field behind the yard is in the green belt and is lower than the canal. Phase 2 of a Marina could be added and modest cost as excavation would not be necessary 4. Littleborough Marina CIC has been working on such a project for several years and seeks Council support. 5. Schofield Street is the access and is narrow. A new access to Phase 2 could be taken from the top gate in the adjoining field 6. Access to the land identified in Para 2.3 of the brief is narrow but that land might be the site of a residential development if the activities of Rochdale Canal Society were moved to plot 4
LCDG see a Marina at Durn as a working marina and see some development on the Ealees site at Canal Street as the interface between tourists and the Canal
1
APPENDIX
Equality Impact Assessment
What are you assessing? Please tick the appropriate box below.
Function Strategy Policy Project Other, please specify below
Service: Section:
Responsible Officer: Name of function/strategy/ policy/ project assessed:
Date of Assessment:
Officers Involved:
Page 26 2
1.What is the purpose of the function/strategy/policy/project assessed?
(Briefly describe the aims, objectives and purpose of the function/strategy/policy/project)
2.Who are the key stakeholders?
3. What is the scope of this equality impact assessment? That is, what is included in this assessment.
Page 27 3
4.Which needs is this function/strategy/ policy/ project designed to meet?
5.Has a needs analysis been undertaken?
6.Who is affected by this function/strategy/ policy/ project ?
7.Who has been involved in the review or development of this function/strategy/ policy/ project and who has been consulted? State your consultation/involvement methodology.
Page 28 4
8.What data have you considered for this assessment and have any gaps in the data been identified. What action will be taken to close any data gaps?
9.Are there any other documents or strategies which are linked to this assessment? If so, please include hyperlinks to these documents below, where available.
10.What impact will this function/ strategy/ policy/ project have on all the protected groups? This includes both positive and potentially negative impacts.
Race Equality
Page 29 5
Disabled People
Carers
Gender
Age
Armed Forces and Ex -Armed Forces Personnel
Page 30 6
Sexual Orientation
Gender Reassignment
Religion or Belief
Pregnant Women or Those on Maternity Leave
Marriage or Civil Partnership
Page 31 7
11 .What are your main conclusions from this analysis?
12 .What are your recommendations?
13 .What actions are you going to take to address the findings of this assessment? Please attach an action plan including details of designated officers responsible for completing these actions.
Signed (Completing Officer):______Date:______
Signed (Head of Service): ______Date:______
Page 32 8
Equality Impact Assessment Action Plan 2014/15
Action Outcome Target Date For Resource Lead Officer Completion Implications
33 Page
1
Equality Impact Analysis Guidance
Introduction
This guidance explains what an equality impact assessment is and what it involves. It also provides background details about the general equality duty. The aim is to apply a proportionate, timely approach to assessing equality when developing policies and delivering services.
Equality Impact Assessment
An equality impact assessment is a tool which will help you to analyse your policies and practices to make sure they do not discriminate against or disadvantage people. It will also help you to improve and promote equality.
An equality impact assessment needs to be undertaken when you are developing a new service, policy, strategy or project. You should also undertake an equality impact assessment if you propose to introduce significant changes to an existing function, policy, strategy or project. This assessment needs to provide elected members with sufficient information to enable them to pay due regard to the general equality duty before they reach a decision about any changes proposed. The time and effort involved in undertaking the equality impact assessment should be in proportion to the policy, strategy or project’s relevance to equality.
The General Equality Duty
The aim of the general equality duty, set out in S149 of the Equality Act 2010, is for public bodies to consider the needs of all individuals in their day to day work, in developing policy, in delivering services, and in relation to their own employees.
In the exercise of their functions, public authorities must have due regard to the need to: • Eliminate discrimination, harassment and victimisation or any other conduct prohibited by the Act in relation to the protected characteristics • Advance equality of opportunity for all persons • Foster good relations between groups of people who share a protected characteristic and those who do not
Advancing equality means: • Removing or minimising disadvantages • Equalising outcomes • Meeting needs • Encouraging participation where this is low and/or addressing under- representation
Fostering good relations means:
Version2 Page 34 Review Date March 2015 2
• Tackling prejudice • Promoting understanding
Paying “Due Regard” to the General Equality Duty
The general equality duty is not prescriptive about the approach a public authority should take in ensuring that it is having due regard to the need to advance the equality aims. However the judgement reached by Mr Justice Walker in the High Court in the case R (on the application of W) -v - Birmingham City Council [2011] EWHC 1147 does explain that “due regard” is a 'substantial rigorous and open-minded approach'. The “due regard” required is very high when a decision is being made which may affect large numbers of vulnerable people, many of whom may fall within one or more of the protected groups.
Case law has developed the following principles which apply to the new general equality duty. These principles include:
1. Decision makers must be fully aware of the implications of the duty when making decisions about their policies and practices 2. The duty is triggered whenever “an issue arises” or when a particular policy or proposal is being developed – so it runs right from the time the policy or proposal is being framed, while it is under consideration, and when the decision is reached. A public authority cannot satisfy the duty by justifying a decision after it has been taken. 3. The duty must be exercised in a way that it influences the final decision. For example, consideration of the need to advance equality should form an integral part of the decision-making process. 4. The responsibility for discharging the duty rests with the public authority even if it has delegated any functions to a third party. Responsibility for discharging the duty cannot be delegated or subcontracted. Any third parties exercising public functions on the public authority’s behalf are required to comply with the duty 5. Regard must be given to the need to advance equality whenever a policy is implemented or reviewed.
The public sector equality duty protects people from discrimination on the basis of certain characteristics which are known as protected characteristics. There are 9 protected characteristics: age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage or civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex (gender), and sexual orientation. Details of each of the protected characteristics are provided in Appendix 1. With regard to marriage or civil partnership, protection is provided in employment and vocational training only.
In addition to the 9 protected characteristics, Rochdale MBC also includes the following two categories: carers and Armed Forces and Ex -Armed Forces personnel, when undertaking an equality impact assessment.
Version2 Page 35 Review Date March 2015 3
Undertaking an analysis of the impact that a proposed change to the way a service may have on equality
An impact assessment proforma needs to be completed when undertaking an analysis of the impact that a function, strategy, policy or project may have upon equality. Please complete the RMBC template proforma. The completed equality impact assessment should be attached to the Cabinet report.
Undertaking an equality impact analysis involves:
§ identifying who should be involved in the equality impact analysis.
§ describing the purpose of the function/strategy/policy/project and the needs that it is designed to meet.
§ identifying the key stakeholders.
§ assessing the impact that the function/strategy/policy/project has on race equality, disabled people, carers, older and younger people, men and women, Armed Forces and Ex- Armed Forces personnel, religion or belief, sexual orientation, transsexuals or transgender, people who have undergone gender reassignment in full, pregnant women and those on maternity leave and on married people or those in a civil partnership. This includes both positive and negative impacts.
§ stating the main conclusions from the analysis and list your recommendations.
§ consulting your stakeholders on the main findings and conclusions of the equality impact analysis. The information and insights that can be gained from involvement and consultation are essential, and involvement and consultation should also usually be carried out as part of the main policy development process.
§ producing an impact analysis action plan. A template for this action plan is included in the RMBC template proforma. Details of this action plan should be included in your service delivery plan. This action plan should state what action you propose to take to eliminate or mitigate any potential adverse impacts which have been identified.
To conduct the analysis you will need to gather the existing information available to you, which will enable you to identify whether your proposed
Version2 Page 36 Review Date March 2015 4
changes may give rise to a discriminatory outcome or unmet need. Examples of some of this information are: • Demographic data (i.e. census information) • The findings of Joint Strategic Needs Assessments (JSNAs), customer insight initiatives, service reviews and recent inspections • An equality profile of your customers, i.e. information on which groups use or receive your service and information on those who do not use or receive your service but may wish to do so etc. • Consultation information, complaints data, feedback from customers, research information such as MORI poll and citizens’ panel information. • Views of frontline and other staff, stakeholders and key partners • Local, regional and national research • Information on how the community is informed of the service, whether the service is targeted at a particular group/community, the different formats and languages in which this information is provided, how the users access the service and how the service take-up is evaluated. • Service outcomes such as what they are, how they are measured, what is done with the information collected, how it is used in the service planning process, what evidence is there of service improvement.
During your analysis you need to state the relevant data which you have considered and state if you identified any gaps in the data and what mechanisms have been put in place to close the gaps.
To assess the impact that the function/strategy/policy/project has on equality for different groups or communities, you should consider the following questions:
• What positive impacts will this function/strategy/policy/project have upon the protected groups? • Is there any evidence of, or potential for unequal outcomes or disadvantage? • Are there, or could there be barriers to accessing the service? E.g. language, physical access etc • Is there any evidence of unmet needs, or potential that needs will not be met? • Could the strategy/project encourage greater participation by a particular group or community where this is low? • Could the strategy/project be developed to further foster good relations between different groups/communities?
Equality Impact Assessments should be proportionate, that is, the time and effort involved should be in proportion to the relevance of the policy or practices, being assessed, to equality.
Version2 Page 37 Review Date March 2015 5
Consulting those affected by the proposals
When consulting on draft service savings proposals the Council is required to comply with the common law standard for consultation established by the courts. A high court ruling R (on the application of W) -v -Birmingham City Council [2011] EWHC 1147 highlighted the following principles which should be adhered to:
• Provide consultees with sufficient reasons in support of particular proposals to allow an intelligent response to be made.
• Ensure that the consultation looks at the practical detail of what the proposal will entail.
• Ensure that consultees are provided with clear information and that they understand what they are being consulted on and what the changes mean.
• Ensure that all the documents being issued as part of the consultation are published together at the start of the consultation period.
• Ensuring that an easy read version of the consultation proposals are made available for those who need them.
• Ensure that consultation responses are taken into account when the ultimate decision is taken.
• It is important to ensure that the consultation process is accessible and that consultees are provided information in the most appropriate way and in the format which meets their specific needs.
Please note that the Council has:
• a separate equality impact assessment template to complete for savings proposals • a corporate Consultation Strategy which it is currently being updated. For further details please contact Amy Foots or Joanne Brickell.
Details of Useful Contacts
If you require any further advice relating to:
Undertaking an Equality Impact Assessment please contact Sally Atueyi. Telephone Ext. 5631 Email: [email protected]
Consulting stakeholders please contact: Amy Foots Telephone Ext. 5233 Email: amy.foots@rochdale .gov.uk or Joanne Brickell Telephone Ext. 5031 Email: joanne.brickell.gov.uk
Version2 Page 38 Review Date March 2015 6
APPENDIX 1
The 9 Protected Characteristics
Protected Characteristic Comment Age Protection is for over 18’s only. Age can be defined in different ways e.g. it can refer to a person of a particular age, or belonging to an age group or age range. Disability Defined as “a physical or mental impairment which has a substantial and long term adverse effect on the person’s ability to carry out normal day to day activities.” It is now easier to meet the definition. Gender reassignment Protection is provided when someone has proposed, started or completed a process to change their sex. There is no requirement to be undergoing medical supervision. Marriage or civil partnership Protection is provided in employment and vocational training only. Pregnancy and maternity For all areas covered by the Act a woman is protected from unfavourable treatment because of pregnancy or because she has given birth in the previous 26 weeks, or because she is on maternity leave. Race Includes colour nationality, and ethnic or national origins. Religion or belief The religion can be any religion – it doesn’t have to be a mainstream religion. Belief refers to any religious of philosophical belief and includes Humanism and Atheism. Sex (gender) Sexual orientation This refers to whether a person’s sexual attraction is towards their own sex, the opposite sex or both sexes.
Please note: In addition to the 9 protected characteristics, Rochdale MBC also includes the following two categories: carers and Armed Forces and Ex - Armed Forces personnel, when undertaking an equality impact assessment.
Version2 Page 39 Review Date March 2015 Agenda Item 10
Subject: Pennines Township Funds 2015/16 Status: For Publication
Report to : Pennines Township Committee Date: Tuesday, 26 May 2015
Cabinet Member: Councillor Neil Emmott
Report of: Chief Executive Author : Sharron Worrall
Author Email: [email protected] Tel: Tel: 01706 924802
Comments from Statutory Monitoring Officer: Yes/No Officers: Section 151 Officer: Yes/No
1. Purpose of Report
1.1 A review of revenue and capital expenditure during 2014/15 and provide options for the allocation of funds in 2015/16.
1.2 Members to approve Pennines Township Funds terms and conditions, and agree delegation arrangements concerning funding decisions.
2. Recommendations
2.1 Members note the expenditure, commitments and balances for Pennines Township revenue and capital funds at financial year end 2014/15 (Appendix 1 and 2).
2.2 Members note the findings of the review of Township Funds 2014/15 (Appendix 3) and evaluation information received to date for some of the projects funded during 2014/15 (Appendix 4).
2.3 Members approve the allocation of Pennines Township Funds to funding streams in 2015/16 as detailed in Appendix 5.
2.4 Members approve the terms and conditions for Pennines Township revenue and capital funds for 2015/16 (Appendix 6).
2.5 Members agree to the delegation arrangements for Pennines Township Funds 2015/16 as detailed in 3.6 of this report.
2.6 Members agree any uncommitted/unspent funds be reallocated to a central revenue or capital funding stream as appropriate before the end of January 2016 to enable Members to spend/commit all Pennines Township Funds during 2015/16 financial year.
Page 40
Reason for recommendation
2.7 Management of the Pennines Township Fund is delegated to the Pennines Township Delegated and Funding Sub Committee.
2.8 Pennines Township Funds are allocated to projects/schemes that benefit the Township’s community and environment, and realise the Township priorities.
2.9 To enable Committee to monitor and review the use of the Pennines Township Funds to ensure continued efficient and effective use of Township Funds.
3. Background
3.1 Members note expenditure, commitments and balances for Pennines Township revenue and capital funds 2014/15 (Appendix 1 and 2). The final outturn for financial year 2014/15 as agreed with Accountancy will be reported to the next scheduled funding committee.
3.2 A review of Pennines Township revenue and capital funds has been undertaken (Appendix 3). Findings have influenced funding streams suggestions, the terms and conditions of the funds and the administration procedures for grant applications for 2015/16.
3.3 Evaluation of projects provides useful information to the Township Office relating to identifying the effectiveness of the application process and management of grants; whether projects deliver value for money; applicants achieve their objectives and evidence their successes, and ensure the completed projects funded complied with the terms and conditions of the fund. In 2014/15 grants awarded and projects funded made a difference to the local community with improvements to local facilities, increased social interaction and delivery of solutions to address local needs. All successful applicants are informed that it is a condition of the grant that they complete a Project Evaluation Form. Members are asked to note the summaries of evaluation information received to date on projects funded as detailed in Appendix 4.
3.4 Township Officers have analysed the findings from the review of Township Funds 2014/15 and recommend that Members approve the allocation of Township Funds to funding streams in 2015/16 as detailed in Appendix 5.
3.5 Terms and conditions for Pennines Township revenue and capital funds have been updated. Members are asked to approve the terms and conditions for 2015/16 (Appendix 6).
3.6 Members are asked to agree to the delegation arrangements for Pennines Township Funds 2015/16 as follows:
a) Principal Townships Officer, in consultation with the Chair and Vice Chair of Pennines Township Committee, may make decisions on the allocation of funds to all projects for £5,000 and under.
b) Pennines Township Officers will refer projects over £5,000 to the next Pennines Township Delegated and Funding Sub Committee for decision.
c) Pennines Township Officers will refer projects to be funded from Ward Funds to Ward Councillors to seek their support and submit for delegated decision on confirmation of majority agreement to a project. Any disputes concerning
Page 41 allocation of Ward Funds will be referred to the next Pennines Township Delegated and Funding Sub Committee for decision.
d) Delegated decisions will be reported for information to each Pennines Township Delegated and Funding Sub Committee to ensure all Members are aware of projects that have been approved.
Alternatives considered
3.7 In considering the report, Members will decide whether or not to approve the allocation of funds to funding streams and adopt the terms and conditions.
4. Financial Implications
4.1 Committee will receive regular reports to enable Members to monitor the use of the Pennines Township Funds to ensure best use of available resources.
4.2 Township funds are monitored on a monthly basis and financial monitoring reports will be presented to future Committees.
5. Legal Implications
5.1 Under the Borough of Rochdale Compact with the voluntary sector the Council has made a commitment to consider the impact on service users of any changes to the financial arrangements for the voluntary sector and to provide at least three months’ notice of such changes.
6. Personnel Implications
6.1 There are no personnel implications arising from this report.
7. Corporate Priorities
7.1 The purpose of the Township Funds is to enable Township Committees to meet their respective Township Plan priorities and deliver actions to meet those priorities. This report asks Members to consider how Township Funds 2015/16 are allocated in order to do this.
7.2 The Vision and Blueprint for Rochdale Council retains Township Committees and will devolve a range of services to Township direction, managed through annual Township Plans which are reviewed on a quarterly basis.
8. Risk Assessment Implications
8.1 There are no specific risk issues for Members to consider arising from this report.
9. Equalities Impacts
9.1 Workforce Equality Impacts Assessment
There are no workforce equality issues arising from this report.
Page 42
9.2 Equality/Community Impact Assessments
Careful consideration has been given to the potential equality impact of the proposed projects. No adverse impacts are expected and it is anticipated that the projects will benefit all sections of the community.
Background Papers Document Place of Inspection None N/A
Page 43 APPENDIX 1
PENNINES TOWNSHIP FUNDS REPORT 2014/15
% Actual % Actual + OVERALL SUMMARY - REVENUE 2014/15 £ Spend Committed Budget b/f (2013/14) 52,100 64.02% 95.60% Base Budget 2014/15 81,500 Income from other funds/services 2014/15 57,000 Budget Available 2014/15 190,600 Budgets transferred to services/actuals 122,018 Commitments 60,201 Total Actual + Commitments 182,219 Budget Remaining 2014/15 8,381
Forecast Outturn 190,600
Potential 44 Page under/overspend 2014/15 -
Virements Base Budget Balance Revised Actuals to Committed within Virements Total to Budget Income/ remaining Funds b/f 2013/14 Budget Period to Period Township to Services Period 2014/15 Adjustments 2014/15 £ 2014/15 £ £ Funds £ £ £ £ £ Township Projects Fund 38,357 61,100 50,000 149,457 23,380 52,448 (8,323) 78,162 145,667 3,790 Events Fund 4,298 5,400 7,000 16,698 5,710 1,760 4,637 - 12,107 4,591 Maintenance Fund 1,135 3,000 - 4,135 555 580 3,000 - 4,135 1 Littleborough Lakeside Ward Fund - 3,000 - 3,000 2,500 500 - - 3,000 - Milnrow & Newhey Ward Fund 3,686 3,000 - 6,686 1,231 4,769 686 - 6,686 - Smallbridge & Firgrove Ward Fund 2,967 3,000 - 5,967 3,450 - - 2,517 5,967 - Wardle & West Littleborough Ward Fund 1,657 3,000 - 4,657 2,423 144 - 2,090 4,657 0 Total 52,100 81,500 57,000 190,600 39,249 60,201 - 82,769 182,219 8,381 APPENDIX 2
PENNINES TOWNSHIP FUNDS REPORT 2014/15
% Actual % Actual + OVERALL SUMMARY - CAPITAL 2014/15 £ Spend Committed Budget b/f (2013/14) 20,300 68.55% 90.68% Base Budget 2014/15 97,600 Income/Adjustments 2014/15 - Budget Available 2014/15 117,900 Budgets transferred to other services/actuals 80,826 Commitments 26,086 Total Actual + Commitments 106,912 Budget Remaining 2014/15 10,988
Forecast Outturn 117,900 Potential under/(over)spend 2014/15 -
Page 45 Page Virements Budget Balance b/f Budget Revised Actuals to Committed within Virements Total to Income/ remaining Funds 2013/14 2014/15 Budget Period to Period Township to Services Period Adjustments 2014/15 £ £ 2014/15 £ £ Funds £ £ £ £ Capital Fund 17,700 69,600 - 87,300 2,661 25,794 (1,184) 57,351 84,621 2,679 Armed Forces Fund - 20,000 - 20,000 1,941 - - 9,750 11,691 8,309 Littleborough Lakeside Ward Capital Fund - 2,000 - 2,000 794 - - 1,206 2,000 0 Milnrow & Newhey Ward Capital Fund - 2,000 - 2,000 - - - 2,000 2,000 - Smallbridge & Firgrove Ward Capital Fund 1,300 2,000 - 3,300 - - - 3,300 3,300 - Wardle & West Littleborough Ward Capital Fund 1,300 2,000 - 3,300 1,824 292 1,184 - 3,300 - Total 20,300 97,600 - 117,900 7,219 26,086 - 73,607 106,912 10,988
APPENDIX 3
PENNINES TOWNSHIP YEAR END REVENUE & CAPITAL FUNDS REVIEW 2014/15
REVENUE FUNDS Fund Budget Review Projects Fund £61,100 Projects Fund provides a budget to resource larger projects to address local issues/demands to benefit the local Base Budget community and environment across Pennines Township.
£38,357 This fund was used to support 27 projects (£128,751) approved in 2014/15 consisting of 13 community projects b/f 2013/14 (£40,456) and 14 highways/environmental projects (£88,295). This amount includes an allocation of £50,000 for a dedicated Pennines Township Clean and Green Team for a period of 21 weeks commencing April 2015 as agreed at £50,000 Pennines Township Delegated & Funding Sub Committee on 11 March 2015. The variety of projects funded in Income/ 2014/15 included a contribution to the Canal Festival activities, replacement of a Shopmobility scooter, repairs to the Adjustments access road into Hare Hill Park, provision of storage facilities for Wardle Anderson Band’s equipment/instruments, grants to Wardle Academy Band and Milnrow Morris Troupe to enable young people to compete in championships that recognise their commitment to the arts, support for environmental projects to be delivered by Pennines in Bloom Page 46 Page Group in 2015, increasing the reach of the Littleborough Rushcart with a grant to Littleborough Oakenhoof to deliver local community workshops, relocation of the Allen Generator at Ellenroad Engine House to allow access for conservation works before public display, and repairs to Littleborough United Reformed Church to enhance the community facilities. Evaluation information relating to some of the projects awarded funds is detailed in Appendix 4 of this report. An unallocated amount from this fund of £3,790 and committed funds of £52,448 will be carried forward to 2015/16. Township Officers recommend the Projects Fund retains a base budget of £64,500 in 2015/16 (subject to final outturn agreed with Accountancy). Ward Fund £12,000 Each Pennines Township Ward received £3,000 to allocate to smaller projects that would enable activities to take Base Budget place to respond to local issues/demands for the benefit of the local community and environment. This fund has been useful in providing a budget for dealing with issues that necessitated a quick response with Ward Councillors £8,310 identifying projects and approval being sought from the Pennines Township Chair and Vice Chair. b/f 2013/14 This fund was used to support 12 projects (£12,000) approved in 2014/15 consisting of 5 community projects (£3,964) and 7 highways/environmental projects (£8,036). The variety of projects funded in 2014/15 included improvements to Wardle Memorial Garden with new planting, installation of a crossing access at Ditton Mead Close, new grit bins, purchase of clogs for Littleborough Oakenroof dancers and classes in North West/Longsword dance styles, provision of equipment/items to support the delivery of arts and crafts activities and creation of a sensory garden at Meadowfields Community Centre for an older people’s group and allocation of a budget for environmental improvements within the wards. Evaluation information relating to some of the projects awarded funds is detailed in Appendix 4 of this report. Committed funds of £5,413 will be carried forward to 2015/16. Township Officers recommend each Ward Fund retains a base budget of £3,000 in 2015/16.
1
REVENUE FUNDS Fund Budget Review Events Fund £5,400 The Events Fund has been allocated to a number of events in Pennines Township that have taken place or planned to Base Budget be delivered in 2015/16 for the benefit and enjoyment of the local community. These events have included Tour de France activities at Littleborough Library, Milnrow Cricket Club brass band contest, MAD Theatre Company’s £4,298 production of ‘Famine’ at Ellenroad Mill, provision of wreaths for schools to lay at war memorials during b/f 2013/14 Remembrance Sunday 2014 and the Big Games 2015 that will provide opportunities for young people to experience diverse and exciting sports and leisure activities. Evaluation information relating to some of the projects awarded £7,000 funds is detailed in Appendix 4 of this report. Income/ Adjustments Pennines Township received £7,000 from Rochdale Council’s Feelgood activities budget to allocate to events and committed funds of £1,760 will be carried forward to 2015/16 together with unallocated funds of £4,591. Township Officers recommend the Events Fund retains a budget of £4,591 to contribute to Pennines Township events in 2015/16 (balance of monies received from Rochdale Council’s Feelgood activities budget prior to year end). Maintenance £3,000 The Maintenance Contracts Fund was established to fund the maintenance of all civic flags/flag poles across the Contracts Fund Base Budget Township and annual community event road closures.
Page 47 Page £1,135 This fund was used this year to finance the purchase of new union flags for the flagpoles located at Littleborough War b/f 2013/14 Memorial, Hollingworth Lake, Milnrow Memorial Gardens and Cotton Tree Corner, Newhey as their condition had deteriorated and they were no longer suitable for handling/display during events. Also funds (£150) were used to hire a skip for a clean up undertaken by Community Payback on The Cray, Milnrow with a path previously inaccessible due to overgrown shrubs brought back into use and removal of glass and rubbish from a play area. No requests for road closures from this fund were received this financial year.
As agreed at Pennines Township Committee on 10 June 2014, unspent funds (£3,000) were reallocated to the Projects Fund to be carried forward to 2015/16 together with £580 committed funds for environmental improvement works.
Township Officers recommend no longer having a Maintenance Fund as the Council’s Highways Service have established a budget for funding road closures for events and the limited annual costs for maintenance of civic flags/flags poles can be funded via the Pennines Township Projects Fund.
2
CAPITAL FUNDS Fund Budget Review Capital Fund £69,600 The Capital Fund has been used to deliver a range of projects that benefit the Township’s community and Base Budget environment, and realise the Township priorities in 2014/15. Projects were submitted from Councillors, Council Officers and the community. £17,700 b/f 2013/14 This fund was used to support 9 projects (£49,354) during 2014/15 consisting of 1 community project (£25,000) and 8 highways/environmental projects (£24,354). The variety of projects funded included installation of a floating island on Hollingworth Lake to enhance the open waterscape and encourage wildlife diversity, localised widening of Albert Royds Street roundabout, repairs to the boundary wall of Charles Lane car park, installation of new fencing around Stonie Heyes play area, resurfacing Dale Street car park and a contribution towards improving access at Milnrow Library. Evaluation information relating to some of the projects awarded funds is detailed in Appendix 4 of this report.
An unallocated amount from this fund of £2,679 and committed funds of £25,794 will be carried forward to 2015/16. Township Officers recommend the Capital Fund retains a base budget of £69,600 in 2015/16 (subject to final outturn agreed with Accountancy).
Page 48 Page Ward Capital £8,000 Each Pennines Township Ward received £2,000 to allocate to smaller projects that would enable activities to take Fund Base Budget place to respond to local issues/demands for the benefit of the local community and environment. This fund has been useful in providing a budget for dealing with issues that necessitated a quick response with Ward Councillors £2,600 identifying projects and approval being sought from the Pennines Township Chair and Vice Chair. b/f 2013/14 This fund was used to support 5 projects (£6,850) in 2014/15 relating to highways/environmental issues. The variety of projects funded included the installation of new grit bins on Dearden Street and Shore Mount, contribution to improvements at the Dale Street car park, Stonie Heyes play area fencing and installation of a new lighting column on Wellington Lodge.
Funds of £1,184 were unallocated prior to year end 2014/15. As agreed at Pennines Township Committee on 10 June 2014, these unspent funds were reallocated to the Capital Fund to be carried forward to 2015/16 together with £292 committed funds. Township Officers recommend each Ward Capital Fund retains a base budget of £2,000 in 2015/16.
3
CAPITAL FUNDS Fund Budget Review Armed Forces £20,000 Pennines Township received a budget of £20,000 for a four year period in 2014/15 for updating and enhancing Fund Base Budget existing memorials and introducing new memorials to commemorate the centenary of the First World War (1914-18). This fund was used to support 5 projects (£11,691) during 2014/15 that included installation of planters filled with poppies at Littleborough and Milnrow War Memorials to commemorate the centenary of the First World War, provision of display boards to support a World War One Schools’ project to commemorate the outbreak of World War One through art and literature, and restoration/repairs to Wardle, Shore and Littleborough War Memorials. Evaluation information relating to some of the projects awarded funds is detailed in Appendix 4 of this report.
Funds of £8,309 were unallocated prior to year end 2014/15 and this amount will be carried forward to 2015/16.
Page 49 Page
4
APPENDIX 4
“We were very pleased the events brought to the forefront the library’s presence in the community. Many more people are now aware that we provide more than books” Shabana Afzal Senior Library & Information Assistant Littleborough Library
Recipient: Littleborough Library Project: Tour de France lead in events at Littleborough Library Fund: Events Fund Awarded: £520.95
Littleborough Library delivered a variety of Tour de France themed activities in June, July and August 2014 to celebrate this great sporting event coming to town. La Bicyclette de Littleborough on Saturday 28 June 2014 was a family friendly event with a circus skills workshop where young and old could try riding a unicycle and peddlegos, the big yellow balloon race awarded a £20 bike voucher to the person with the furthest travelled balloon, a cycle hunt in Hare Hill Park with prizes of a bike maintenance kit and bike helmet donated by Littleborough’s The Ride Stuff and a yellow jersey celebration cake raffle. The activities inspired by the Tour de France build the excitement of this famous event coming to Littleborough and it provided an opportunity to raise the profile of the library and the many services available. Craft workshops were held in July and August with ‘Rubbish Revamped’ demonstrating how to use recycled materials to make a Tour de France mobile and local artist Cat Jessop encouraged the local community to submit their Tour de France drawings to inspire a mosaic to commemorate the famous race coming to Littleborough. Local children assisted Cat in creating the cycling themed ceramic tile mosaic and the finished artwork is now proudly displayed in a prominent location in Littleborough Library.
The events were a great success and the library experienced more return visits, increased use of the free public computers, greater awareness of Council and library services and gained new members.
Page 50
Page 51
“This project involves a community church and existing hall that faced likely closure due to widespread dry rot. Saving these is of very clear benefit to a wide range of local community groups who use our premises regularly” Reverend Anthea Wickens Littleborough United Reformed Church
Recipient: Littleborough United Reformed Church Project: Refurbishment of Littleborough United Reformed Church Fund: Projects Fund Awarded: £3,199
Littleborough United Reformed Church is a community church with their premises in regular demand from local community groups for activities such as keep fit and Tai Chi plus used for meetings of Littleborough Canalside Development Society, Pennines Health Care, Concerned Others Group (Big Life Charity), Lion Club and a local polling station. The upstairs rooms consist of a large hall with a concert stage plus two small meeting/changing rooms that required extensive restoration and refurbishment to bring them back into community use.
The restoration project to improve the premises for the delivery of services and activities to the local community required the treatment of dry rot to internal timbers and plaster, repairs to the roof and gullies, fitting a fire escape and stair lift to comply with current legislation, carpeting of the top flight of stairs and painting/decoration of the upstairs/downstairs halls, the stairwell leading to them and the toilet block used by community groups. Littleborough United Reformed Church had raised funds for the restoration works through a number of fund raising events such as a Summer Fair, Strawberry Tea and sponsored cycle ride plus donations and a grant from the NW Synod of United Reformed Church. A grant awarded from Pennines Township Funds would enable the church to repaint the upstairs hall, meeting/changing rooms, ground floor hall, disabled toilet and main stairwell plus carpet the top flight of stairs and upstairs hall.
Littleborough United Reformed Church received approval to change the use of the grant awarded when a structural inspection of the first floor revealed the need for emergency work to strengthen the upstairs flooring. The work involved the complete removal of the upstairs floor, installation of new steel girders and timber joists, insulation fitted between the joists for sound attenuation/thermal qualities before restoring the floor and ceiling.
The church restoration of the upstairs hall, stage and adjoining meeting room will be made available for community use for the first time in 20 years as soon as the new fire escape is fitted. Littleborough United Reformed Church intend to hold an Open Day once the project is completed, inviting the local community to come along and see what has been achieved and what facilities will be available.
Page 52
Views from lower and upper access with floor and ceiling removed
Steel joists installed and bolted to wooden beams
Cladding boards to be fitted after insulation and top room floor completed
“The highlights were the patience and goodwill shown to us by the groups that use our premises; the way this project has united our efforts, the amazing generosity of well-wishers; the help and advice received from Pennines Township and perhaps most of all the extraordinary ability to see our church premises go from what had seemed to be an insurmountable threat from dry rot into a vision of new exciting possibilities which are now nearing completion. Thank you all so much.” Reverend Anthea Wickens Littleborough United Reformed Church
Page 53
“…highlight of the project was seeing the generator set in a prominent position at last” Dr David Pope Hon Secretary
Ellenroad Steam Museum Society
Recipient: Ellenroad Steam Museum Society Project: Allen Generator Project Fund: Projects Fund Awarded: £1,150
Ellenroad Steam Museum Society received a grant to hire a crane to relocate the Ellenroad Engine House steam generator to improve its visibility to the public and accessibility for repair/conservation. Volunteers intend to construct a shelter for the generator, the relocated Ashworth and Parker engine and Brown Boveri steam turbine to protect them from the weather before commencing the repair and conservation works. The generator is an early 20th century steam powered electricity generating set built by W H Allen Sons & Co in Bedford. It is identical to and contemporary with those supplied for power generation on the Titanic and as such is of historical importance. This generator produced the power for a
colliery until the end of the last century when it was moved to Ellenroad to preserve it. People of Milnrow and visitors from further afield will be able to see what a very early electricity generating machine looks like as part of their experience of their Ellenroad Engine House visit. This project is part of the ongoing improvements at the Steam Museum dedicated to the education of the public about local heritage.
The engine being lifted into the new position
Allen generator being removed from storage
Page 54
“A community activity is nothing if it does not involve the community, and in terms of both audience and participants, we are confident that we managed to do just that!” Jon Comyn-Platt Artistic Director MAD Theatre Company
Recipient: MAD Theatre Company Project: Famine at Ellenroad Mill Fund: Events Fund Awarded: £800
MAD Theatre Company promote the development and encouragement of drama and amateur theatre in the Rochdale areas of Milnrow, Firgrove and Newhey, primarily by the presentation of amateur theatre productions. Performances at the Ellenroad Mill in 2008, 2010 and 2012 have attracted widespread support and interest from the Mayor, local Councillors and Rochdale’s MP, and they have all been critically acclaimed. The productions have also had the effect of engendering significant interest in, and much needed financial help for, the Ellenroad Museum, who, in addition to the hire of the building, also provide refreshments for cast and audience.
In September 2014 MAD Theatre Company performed the play ‘Famine’ at the Ellenroad Engine Museum, Newhey over five days with the grant awarded to fund the hire of lighting and audio equipment for the production. ‘Famine’ was a play written and performed by members of the MAD Company, all of whom are local residents of Newhey, Milnrow and surrounding areas. The play was a history of the impact of the 1860’s “cotton famine” upon the villages of Milnrow and Newhey as seen through the eyes of a (fictitious) family living in Milnrow at the time. The production aimed to bring an important but little known piece of local history to the attention of both audience and performers in a form which was both accessible and humorous. It described the development of the cotton industry in the area and the hardships suffered by ordinary working people in their largely unsuccessful attempts to extricate themselves from the effect of the ‘Famine’. The production enabled cast and audience to better understand their social history and therefore their present social position.
Page 55
“There were many highlights, but the following stand out: On the many occasions when the audience laughed —when they were supposed to — and when they were silent — in the serious bits. When the audience spontaneously applauded during a performance, and when, every night, they applauded enthusiastically at its conclusion. When members of the audience, and, in rehearsals, the cast, when they told me that before they read or saw the play, they didn’t know anything about the cotton famine or its effect on the area. When members of Ellenroad Trust and Steam Engine Society made clear how much they enjoyed being part of the production, and how much they welcomed us (MADS) into the mill. Finally, and without wishing to be or sound obsequious, when the Mayor and Mayoress told me how much they had enjoyed watching Famine, and I am sure they meant it too!” Jon Comyn-Platt Artistic Director, MAD Theatre Company
The performances took place in the area’s most idiosyncratic and, nationally, its most well known building — the Ellenroad Steam Engine Museum, where makeshift seating, lighting, sound and stage effects were installed in the few days before the first night. The use of this building further facilitated the aims of the performance in that it brought cast and audience literally into the very bricks and mortar of their social and economic history.
Five performances were given from 23 to 27 September 2014, and most of which were fully sold out. Seating was available for 80, and in total over 310 people watched the play — including local Councillors, the Mayor and Mayoress, and also the town’s Member of Parliament. A majority (90%) of the audience were drawn from the local area, and this enabled cast and audience to experience and benefit from their involvement in a community dramatic activity.
The production also involved and was greatly assisted by members of the Ellenroad Steam Engine Society who not only ensured that the building was ready for the performances, but also provided catering and other facilities. In return this meant that the theatre company were able to increase significantly the footfall and general awareness of the Steam Engine Museum and its history, and also contribute financially to the Ellenroad Steam Engine Society.
‘Famine’ was a great success with higher than expected ticket sales and feedback from the audience, members of the Steam Engine Society and MAD Theatre members has been very positive with the performances well received and highly regarded. It brought together the audience, the cast and Ellenroad volunteers in what was a unique local community activity - enjoying the experience of live theatre.
“I believe that as well as enjoying the experience of the performances, members of the cast and the audience learnt a lot from the play about our history” Jon Comyn-Platt Artistic Director, MAD Theatre Company
Page 56
“We have purchased a 4 wheel Mayfair Freerider which replaces an old scooter and this will save money in repair costs” Michelle Hollinrake Manager, Rochdale Borough Shopmobility
Recipient: Rochdale Borough Shopmobility Project: Shopmobility Scooter Replacement Fund: Projects Fund Awarded: £985
Shopmobility provides manual powered wheelchairs and powered scooters and volunteer escorts to help people who have limited mobility shop with ease and enjoyment in Rochdale's Town Centre. It is for anyone, regardless of age, whether their disability is temporary or permanent. The service had 124 registered members in 2013/14 who made 1,974 shopping trips. Shopmobility also provides escorts for people with sensory difficulties, to help with shopping.
As part of the Shopmobility service, scooters are delivered to members who arrive in their private cars at various disabled parking facilities within Rochdale Town Centre and arrangements made to collect the scooter/wheelchair on their return, and help transfer shopping items to their transport. Also this delivery and collection of scooters service is offered to members who travel on the bus arriving and departing at the Transport Interchange at their stop.
A fleet of 16 mobility scooters is available to members and Shopmobility try to replace a scooter when its age and condition do not warrant the cost of further repairs. A grant was awarded to Shopmobility to replace one of their mobility scooters as the service has a duty of care to provide equipment that meets the needs of their users, safe to operate and complies with Health and Safety standards.
The replacement mobility scooter is a welcome addition in enhancing the service provision with members given the freedom to shop, socialise with friends and family and access business and banking services independently with confidence and dignity.
We are delighted to have received the grant and our members have been using the scooter already and would like to thank the Members of the Pennines Township Committee for their support. Michelle Hollinrake Manager, Rochdale Borough Shopmobility
Page 57
“This scheme has created a better
opportunity for the small wildfowl. …created a safer location for the type of wildfowl that were being pestered by the Canada geese and swans.” Ray Smith Chairman Friends of Hollingworth Lake
Recipient: Friends of Hollingworth Lake
Project: Floating Eco Islands on Hollingworth Lake
Fund: Capital Fund Awarded: £1,279.08
Friends of Hollingworth Lake aim to develop new and existing facilities at Hollingworth Lake Country Park to improve, create and restore the environment of the area and increase usage of this valued local beauty spot. The Lake’s nature reserve offers people opportunities to study or learn about nature or simply to enjoy it. The grant awarded as match funding enabled the Friends of group to install four floating islands on Hollingworth Lake. The islands are supplied in a modular system and pre-planted to provide anti- predator fish/wildfowl refuges, natural food larder for fish, biological filters for the lake and reduce algae. Green volunteers, Friends of Hollingworth Lake and members of the Ranger Service all participated in the construction of the floating islands and placement on the lake.
The floating islands are low maintenance and encourage a natural and self sustaining aquatic community which helps create a balanced ecology. Habitat sanctuaries formed by foliage and root matrix growth, both above and below the water, encourage colonisation by birds, dragonflies, invertebrates, amphibians and fish. The scheme enhances the open waterscape of Hollingworth Lake and encourage wildlife diversity.
Page 58
The project has created a wider interest from all the wildfowl people. The children from the local schools are now watching to see what happens concerning use by wildfowl. A highlight has been the interest from water hens and coots investigating the islands after they had been placed and they continue to do so. Ray Smith Chairman, Friends of Hollingworth Lake
Floating island assembly involves laying out the plastic booms on the ground to the size and shape required. Fix flat mesh galvanised panel to bottom of booms.
Place the partly made up island into the water and lay pre-established planted pallets onto the inside of the booms. Push floating island into required position.
Page 59
“The improvements have made a big difference. The Memorial Garden now completed is a beautiful place for remembrance” Councillor Dearnley
Recipient: Environmental Management, Rochdale Council Project: Wardle Memorial Gardens Improvements Fund: Ward Fund Awarded: £2,090.16
Wardle Memorial Garden had no new planting for a number of years and existing plants were sparse and made the area look neglected. For Remembrance Day 2014 it was decided to enhance the Memorial Garden to complement the restored Wardle War Memorial and create an area for quiet reflection especially in this special first year of the World War One centenary.
Environmental Management were commissioned to remove the existing roses from beds and prepare the site for new planting. Eight common yew trees have been planted and all the beds have been filled with attractive polyanthus and tulips. These flower beds will be changed seasonally in June and October and the yews clipped twice per year to keep their shape.
Wardle’s War Memorial that honours those men who died in the service of their country in the First and Second World Wars is once again located within a beautiful landscaped area.
Before – plants were sparse and Wardle After – New planting has created an Memorial Garden looked neglected attractive garden for quiet reflection
Page 60
“Lilian Ogden and her husband attended the Remembrance Sunday service in memory of her grandfather named on the memorial. She expressed her appreciation that the work had been completed so quickly and the memorial and gardens looked beautiful, and thanked Ward Councillors and the Council on behalf of her family” Tracey Knight Pennines Township Office
Recipient: Environmental Management, Rochdale Council Project: Wardle War Memorial Restoration Fund: Armed Forces Fund Awarded: £2,125
Wardle War Memorial is a beautiful marble cross surmounting a three step granite plinth and pediment with granite plaques on the side. The memorial commemorates 87 soldiers from the First World War and 19 from the Second World War who lost their lives in the conflicts. A family member of one of those named who is buried in France had contacted the Council concerning restoration before a relative’s planned visit to the memorial.
Environmental Management were commissioned to arrange the restoration works before the relative’s visit from France in October. Wardle War Memorial was cleaned, the under plinths re-positioned and the joints on the under plinths re-cemented. All 1,229 letters on the memorial were re-gilt with 24ct gold leaf to once again make visible the names of those who should never be forgotten.
The memorial is a significant landmark within Wardle and the enhanced monument provides a location where the local community can reflect on the impact of conflict and honour those who served their country.
Before and after images of Wardle War Memorial after the restoration works on the monument to re-gilt the names of the fallen.
Page 61
“…the area of planting has created a better biodiversity for all types of wildlife and different colours with flowers in Spring and leaf discolouration in Autumn. A great improvement both visually and environmentally” Ray Smith Chairman Friends of Hollingworth Lake
Recipient: Friends of Holllingworth Lake Project: Provision of trees at Hollingworth Lake Fund: Projects Fund Awarded: £1,198
Friends of Hollingworth Lake delivered a planting scheme to enhance the Pavilion area at the rear of Hollingworth Lake following the removal of rhododendron bushes and their root systems. Extensive preparation works were undertaken to ensure the site was completely cleared of the non-indigenous evergreen rhododendron as established bushes act as a seed source for further invasions in adjacent areas, eradicating ground cover plants and interfering with the process of natural regeneration of trees. The decision was made to remove the rhododendron bushes as this shrub is known to reduce the numbers of earthworms, birds and plants and regenerative capacity of a site, leading to a reduction in the biodiversity of an area. Also physical access to the site was reduced by the density and size of the mature bushes.
A variety of trees including the star magnolia, wild cherry, Tibetan cherry, black pine and scots pine were planted that have fragrant flowers and attractive foliage throughout the year providing natural aesthetic beauty and benefits to local wildlife.
After – Land cleared ready for planting new trees that will mature and create benefits for local wildlife
Before - Rhododendron bushes were suppressing native ground flora and restricting plant diversity in the area
Page 62
“We want to encourage everyone to explore, enjoy and learn about our local canals through a range of events from guided walks and bike rides to outdoor theatre and arts, fun days and practical events. The annual canal festival is a popular event engaging communities with their local waterways”” Lucy Rogers Enterprise Manager Canal & River Trust
Recipient: Canal & River Trust Project: Canal Festival 2014 Fund: Projects Fund Awarded: £1,000
The Canal Festival aims to promote the canal as an opportunity to improve health through participation in activities, learn about history and heritage, develop skills and encourage the local community to value and respect their outdoor environment. The Canal & River Trust is the guardian of 2,000 miles of historic waterways across England and Wales, caring for the nation’s third largest collection of listed structures, as well as museums, archives and hundreds of important wildlife sites. The Trust believes that living waterways transform places and enrich lives and their role is to make sure there is always a place on people’s doorsteps where they can escape the pressures of everyday life, stretch their legs and simply feel closer to nature.
The grant awarded to the Canal & River Trust contributed to the wider 2014 Canal Festival and set out to improve and enhance community engagement for local people from the Pennines Township, giving them opportunities to engage in outdoor activities and learn about their local canal. The project aimed to engage more local children, young people and their families, enabling them to benefit from and have access to outdoor activities and leisure opportunities. The activities also encouraged families to value and respect their outdoor environment, with the aim of contributing to a reduction in anti-social behaviour, increased use of the canal and wider community safety. The project supported the Township priorities by improving services for children and young people, enhancing quality of life and improving leisure and recreational opportunities and promoting healthy lifestyles.
Canal & River Trust organised, promoted and run taster sessions in canoeing and kayaking plus family nature discovery and crafts activities during October 2014. Participants of the kayaking gained new skills, had opportunities to make new friends and build their confidence as well as learn about their local outdoor space and water safety.
The overarching Canal Festival, now in its 8th year, has had great benefits for communities across the borough, aiming to engage local people and encourage them to appreciate, value and enjoy their local outdoor canal space. Evaluations carried out throughout the festival’s lifespan has shown perceptions of the canal are improving. By encouraging families and young people to access specific targeted activities such as those delivered in Pennines Township, the Canal & River Trust encourage a new generation to care about and respect the waterway and increase the number of people positively using the canal.
Page 63 APPENDIX 5
PENNINES TOWNSHIP FUNDING STREAMS 2015/16
REVENUE FUNDS 2015/16 = £175,082
REVENUE FUNDS Budget Income/ Total Budget Fund b/f 2014/15 Base Budget Committed Available Notes Adjustments 2015/16 2015/16 Projects Fund £56,818 £64,500 £0 £121,318 £53,028 £68,290 Fund to resource larger revenue projects that meet the Township priorities. Base budget of £64,500 with retained budget of £53,028 (see committed column) for projects approved pre 2015/16. Events Fund £6,351 £0 £0 £6,351 £1,760 £4,591 Fund received from Rochdale Council’s Feelgood activities budget for Pennines Township to allocate to events during 2015/16 for the benefit of the local community. An allocation of £4,591 b/f from 2014/15 with retained budget of £1,760
Page 64 Page (see committed column) for projects approved pre 2015/16.
Ward Revenue Fund £5,413 £12,000 £0 £17,413 £5,413 £12,000 Fund to resource smaller revenue projects that address local issues/demands for the benefit of the local community and environment. Base budget of £12,000 will provide each Pennines Township Ward with £3,000 to allocate to revenue projects within their Ward. A retained budget of £5,413 (see committed column) relates to projects approved pre 2015/16.
Car Park Maintenance Fund £0 £5,000 £0 £5,000 £0 £5,000 Fund will finance the maintenance of non-regulated Pennines Township car parks. Town Centres Fund £0 £0 £25,000 £25,000 £0 £25,000 Fund received from Rochdale Council’s Economic Affairs Unit for the purpose of assisting the town centres within the Pennines Township to grow, prosper and diversify. A budget of £10,000 to support creative ideas and to generate increased business and interest in shopping at local town centres/high streets in Pennines Township. Improvements to frontages of businesses to be resourced with a budget of £15,000. Terms and conditions of the fund to be agreed with the Pennines Township Chair and Vice Chair in consultation with Officers from the Rochdale Council's Economic Affairs Unit.
TOTAL £68,582 £81,500 £25,000 £175,082
Page 1 of 2 CAPITAL FUNDS 2015/16 = £114,674
CAPITAL FUNDS Budget Income/ Total Budget Fund b/f 2014/15 Base Budget Committed Available Notes Adjustments 2015/16 2015/16 Capital Fund £28,473 £69,600 £0 £98,073 £25,794 £72,279 Fund to resource larger capital projects that meet the Township priorities. Base budget of £69,600 with retained budget of £25,794 (see committed column) for projects approved pre 2015/16. Ward Capital Fund £292 £8,000 £0 £8,292 £292 £8,000 Fund to resource smaller capital projects that address local issues/demands for the benefit of the local community and environment. Base budget of £8,000 will provide each Pennines Township Ward with £2,000 to allocate to capital projects within their Ward. A retained budget of £292 (see committed column) relates to projects approved pre 2015/16.
Armed 65 Page Forces Fund £8,309 £0 £0 £8,309 £0 £8,309 Fund for updating and enhancing existing memorials and introducing new memorials to commemorate the centenary of the First World War (1914-18). A budget of £20,000 for a four year period was allocated in 2014/15. TOTAL £37,074 £77,600 £0 £114,674
Page 2 of 2 PENNINES TOWNSHIP FUND TERMS AND CONDITIONS 2015/16 APPENDIX 6
1. Purpose of the fund
Pennines Township’s vision is to create sustainable urban and semi-rural communities in our Township where people feel safe and have a sense of community and belonging. We want the local community to have access to appropriate housing, employment, leisure and community facilities, and proper social and family support.
Pennines Township funds can be used to offer support to projects and organisations that are of direct benefit to the community and environment of the Pennines area. Councillors, Council Services, partner agencies, third sector organisations and area forums can submit projects on relevant application forms for funding from Pennines Township Funds.
All projects must show how they will address the Pennines Township priorities of:
Place – To promote environmental, economic and social regeneration to benefit the local community. People – Improved service provision to young people so they will have happier, healthier and more prosperous lives. To improve the health of residents and deliver a better quality of life. To reduce crime and the fear of crime so that people who live and work in the Pennines Township will feel and be safer. Prosperity - Develop quality business and employment opportunities. Public Service Reform - Increasing choice, opening services up to a wider range of providers, devolving decision making to the lowest appropriate level and improving transparency and accountability of public services.
2. What can be funded a) Projects aiming to meet Township priorities. b) Projects for which there is no other identifiable budget and are within the powers of the Council. c) Projects that supplement or enhance current Council service provision. d) Improvements to landscapes or public areas, eg providing additional seating, paving, railings, etc. e) Restoration of buildings or landscaping as part of a heritage scheme. f) Projects that can clearly demonstrate benefit to the local community such as providing bollards, fencing, lights, CCTV, etc. g) Projects that can be delivered with no additional revenue costs. h) Equipment hire or purchase such as IT equipment, sports equipment, arts and crafts materials, etc. i) Publicity materials for use in your project and recognises the contribution made by the Township. j) Specialist trainers/assessors to deliver qualifications/courses/activities. k) Hiring of venues to enable the project to be delivered (not general running costs). l) Talented young athletes competing at national/international level supported by a recognised sporting body.
3. What cannot be funded a) Projects that would normally be funded through mainstream budgets, that duplicates or replaces existing services or that the Council or other body has a statutory obligation to provide. b) Projects benefiting individuals. c) Improvements to private land or buildings resulting in equity gain, unless there is a demonstrable wider community benefit. d) Promoting religious or political causes. e) Campaigning or carrying out activities to influence a Council decision in the exercise of its statutory functions.
Page 66 1 Form PT03 f) Support for the general work of charities including fundraising events. g) Wages or expenses for permanent, contract or regular members of staff. h) General running costs, eg utility bills, maintenance and repair of assets, etc. i) Parties/day trips out. j) Purchase of alcohol. k) Activities already started or purchasing items before funding is awarded. l) Purchasing or hiring of vehicles. m) Purchasing insurance.
4. Terms and conditions a) The expenditure must be within the powers of the Council. b) The project must benefit the Township community or environment and meet at least one of the Pennines Township priorities (see section 1). c) Grants can only be made to non-profit making formally constituted groups with their own group bank account. d) All grants must be spent/claimed within six months of approval. Any extension to this period must be made in writing and is subject to the Chair and Vice Chair of Pennines Township Delegated and Funding Sub Committee’s discretion. e) The grant must be used for the purposes for which it was approved. Any requests for change of use must be made in writing and is subject to the Chair and Vice Chair of Pennines Township Delegated and Funding Sub Committee’s discretion. f) VAT on purchases relating to the project must only be included in the amount requested if it cannot be claimed back from HM Revenue and Customs. g) Applicants are responsible for ensuring that all necessary permissions (such as planning permission), regulations (such as health and safety) and insurance relating to their scheme/event are in place. h) Applicants are responsible for applying to Rochdale Council if they intend to hold a public event on Council owned land. i) Groups applying for a project to work with children, young people or vulnerable adults must have policies and procedures in place that explain how these people will be protected and remain safe. j) If public liability insurance is required for a community project, it is the responsibility of the group to ensure adequate insurance is in place. k) The Council does not accept any liability for damage, loss or future maintenance of any projects funded by Township Funds. l) The Council reserves the right to withhold or reclaim the grant monies if the terms and conditions are not adhered to. m) The Council’s approval must be sought for the disposal or transfer of any items acquired with the grant. n) Successful applicants must complete and return a Project Evaluation Form and provide copy invoices/receipts that reflect the amount awarded and purpose for which the grant was approved as detailed in the application form. This information must be provided to Pennines Township Office within one month of the conclusion of the project. Failure to return these documents will result in restrictions being imposed on the applicant relating to future requests for funding or reclaiming of the grant monies. o) Applicants who seek to be awarded funds from Pennines Township on successive occasions need to demonstrate how they have tried to secure funding from other sources. p) The Council reserves the right to add/change specific conditions relating to payment of the grant, the purpose of the grant and/or the activities to be funded.
Page 67 2 Form PT03
5. Decision Making Process a) All projects must be submitted on an application form with supporting documentation. b) Application forms are checked by Township Officers to see if the project meets the terms and conditions of the fund. c) Projects not meeting the terms and conditions or incomplete application forms will be referred back to the applicant within 10 working days with a written explanation. At this point applicants may be requested to supply additional information. d) Township Officers will refer projects for funding over £5,000 to the next Pennines Township Delegated and Funding Sub Committee for decision. e) Township Officers will use the officer scheme of delegation process for projects for funding of £5,000 or less. f) Township Officers will refer projects to be funded from Ward Funds to Ward Councillors to seek their support and submit for delegated decision on confirmation of majority agreement to a project. g) Any disputes concerning allocation of funds will be referred to the next Pennines Township Delegated and Funding Sub Committee for decision. h) Applicants will be advised of decisions in writing within 15 working days of the Pennines Township Delegated and Funding Sub Committee meeting. i) Township Officers will consult with the Chair and Ward Councillors about the future of a project when a Councillor has committed funds to a project and subsequently decided not to stand for election or has not been re-elected. j) There is no appeals process, but applicants may submit a fresh application.
6. Commissioning Process a) All parties to do everything within their power to ensure the completion of the project to the specification and achieve the desired outcome within the specified timescale and costs. b) Proposed schemes/projects need to be developed in consultation with the relevant service to ensure alternative funding is not available and that they have resources available to cover any future maintenance/monitoring requirements. c) Any variations in costs or outcomes by either party should be negotiated and agreed between the provider and the Pennines Township Delegated and Funding Sub Committee prior to incurring any additional costs. d) Where the Township wish to vary the specification – the service provider will identify the implications of the change, i.e. time extensions, impact on outcomes, etc. and additional costs, and agree the variations with the Pennines Township Delegated and Funding Sub Committee. e) Where the service provider may wish to vary the specification – the service provider should submit the variations to the Township Office with justification prior to incurring additional costs for consideration by the Pennines Township Delegated and Funding Sub Committee. The Committee may decide not to accept the variations in which case the project continues to the original specification or if the Committee accepts the variations, to agree the funding of any additional costs from the Township Funds. f) The service provider will receive sufficient budget transferred from the Township Fund to cover the cost of the project on the Township Office receiving evidence of the start of the project as agreed. Stage payments may be agreed. g) The service provider agrees to provide regular monitoring reports on the project in terms of achieving the outcomes, performance against targets and finance, and post project evaluation reports. h) Where a service provider does not satisfy the performance targets for the project, the Pennines Township Delegated and Funding Sub Committee may, after consultation with the service provider, withhold funds (or withdraw funds previously transferred to a Council Service). i) Any unapproved additional costs incurred by the service provider must be borne by the service provider unless agreed otherwise with the Pennines Township Delegated and Funding Sub Committee. j) Service providers external to the Council willPage be required 68 to submit invoices. 3 Form PT03 Agenda Item 11
Subject: Township Committee – Delegation Status: For Publication Arrangements 2015/16
Report to : Pennines Township Committee Date: 26 th May 2015
Cabinet Member: Councillor Neil Emmott Cabinet Member for Corporate & Neighbourhoods
Report of: Head of Legal and Governance Reform Author : Michael Garraway Author Email: michael.garraway @rochdale.gov.uk Tel: Tel: 01706 924716
Key Decision: No
1 Purpose of Report
1.1. To request the Township Committee to confirm its delegated decision making arrangements for the 2015/16 Municipal Year.
2 Recommendations
2.1 The Committee confirm the Sub-Committee structure of the Pennines Township Committee comprising of the Pennines Township Delegated and Funding Sub- Committee and the Pennines Township Planning Sub-Committee.
2.2 The Committee approves the delegation arrangements to the Pennines Township Delegated and Funding Sub-Committee, as contained within the Scheme of Delegation to Township Committees and the terms of reference of that Sub-Committee as detailed in Appendix 1 to this report.
2.3 The Committee notes that the terms of reference of the Planning Sub-Committee are contained within the Schedule of Delegation Arrangements for Development and Related Matters.
Reason for recommendation
2.4 The Committee agrees the delegation arrangements to ensure that decisions are made in accordance with the Scheme of Delegation to Township Committees of the Council’s Constitution. Failure to agree to the delegation arrangements can open the risk that the Township Committee is unable to undertaken the functions of the Committee.
3 Background
3.1 The Scheme of Delegation appended to the Council’s Constitution delegates Executive and non-Executive functions to the Township Committees. The Council approved an approach for developing the role of Township Committees, giving
Page 69 increasing responsibility for budgets and day-to-day delivery of services. The Township Committees now hold responsibility for the delivery of the following Council services and are requested to confirm delegation arrangements to carry out these functions:– • Environmental Management (excluding Refuse Collection and Recycling and Bereavement Services) • Highways and Engineering • Community Centres • Libraries • Development Control • Township Funds • Leisure Projects - commissioning
3.2 Pennines Delegated and Funding Sub-Committee currently exercises formal powers as detailed at Appendix 1, as a Committee for dealing with ’urgent’ issues on behalf of the Township Committee and for making grant approvals and decisions on devolved budgets and Township Funds.
3.3 Pennines Township Planning Sub-Committee - the Sub-Committee works to a delegation scheme contained within the Schedule of Delegation Arrangements for Development and Related Matters.
Alternatives considered
3.4 Township Committee, if so minded, could resolve to maintain arrangements as confirmed by the Township Committee on 10 th June 2014, or adopt alternative Sub- Committee arrangements, in accordance with the Scheme of Delegation to Township Committees of the Council’s Constitution.
3.5 To not approve delegation arrangements could delay decisions being made by Township Committee and Sub-Committees.
4 Financial Implications
4.1 There are no direct financial implications to this report.
5 Legal Implications
5.1 The Committee is being asked to confirm its delegation arrangements to ensure that decisions are made in accordance with relevant and statutory procedural requirements.
6 Personnel Implications
6.1 There are no personnel implications to this report.
7 Corporate Priorities
7.1 The Committee is being asked to confirm its Sub-Committee arrangements, in accordance with the Scheme of Delegation to Township Committees of the Council’s Constitution, to ensure that decisions are made in accordance with relevant and statutory procedural requirements.
8. Risk Assessment Implications
8.1 There no specific risks associated with this report
Page 70
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.
There are no background papers to this report.
Page 71
PENNINES TOWNSHIP COMMITTEE (Pennines Township Delegated Sub-Committee)
TERMS OF REFERENCE
1. To receive and consider the minutes arising from meetings of the Ward/Area Fora and other Township working Parties and related bodies, referring matter of concern to the Township Committee.
2. To exercise the following delegated powers as provided in the Scheme of Delegation to Township Committees A. Authority to determine certain applications for Public Entertainment licenses and Gaming Permits. Note - this delegation to be removed on full implementation of the Licensing Act 2003 and the Gambling Act 2005 B. Determination of objections/representations in respect of the Appointment of Hackney Carriage Stands C. Urgent designation of a Conservation Area D. To deal with urgent matters within the remit of the Pennines Township Committee
3. To exercise under delegated powers the following powers of the Pennines Township Committee (as contained within the Scheme of Delegation to Township Committees) A. Confirmation of Traffic Regulation Orders which are the subject of objection by persons directly affected by the proposal (i.e. in occupation of premises in the immediate vicinity of the proposal) B. Closures or diversions of highways, including footpaths and bridleways, deemed to be contentious by the Director of Highways and Engineering C. Experimental Traffic Regulation Orders (Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, S.9) D. Traffic regulation for special areas, for example, Country Park ( Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, S.22) E. Pedestrian crossings, for example, pelican and zebra crossings (Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, S.23) F. Street playgrounds (Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, S.29) G. Byelaws for street playgrounds (Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, S.31) H. Installation of road humps which are the subject of significant objections by people directly affected (as determined by the Director of Highways and Engineering) I. Making Up of Private Streets – Part IX of Highways Act 1980 (i) The private street works code (ii) General (iii) The advance payment code
Page 1 of 2
Page 72 J. Power to determine applications to make Orders under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 to add footpaths to the Definitive Map K. Power to make Footpath Creation Orders under the Highways Act 1980 S.26 L. Reclassification of roads used as public paths under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 M. Power to designate public footpaths as cycle tracks under the Cycle Tracks Act 1984 N. Consideration of any other matter that may be referred to the Township relating to the regulation of highways, footpaths, bridleways etc.
4. To have full responsibility for all aspects of devolution (including any related delegated budgets and Township Funds) and the implementation and development of the Township Plan.
5. To receive reports from ‘devolved’ and ‘influenced’ Services detailing their response to the Township priorities in the Township Plan and the development of their respective Service Plans to reflect those priorities.
6. To monitor budgets delegated to the Township level (including Township Funds), to ensure that all requirements and restrictions placed on any devolved funding are met or are capable of being met before any decisions are made. 7. To consider and comment on quarterly monitoring reports on devolved funding with a subsequent report to Pennines Township Committee. 8. To consider and determine all applications/ proposals to the Township Funds, ensuring that all requirements and restrictions placed on any devolved funding are met, or capable of being met, before any decisions are made.
Page 2 of 2
Page 73 Agenda Item 12
Subject: Pennines Township Committee Status: For Publication Appointments 2015/16
Report to: Pennines Township Committee Date: 26 th May 2015
Cabinet Member: Neil Emmott Cabinet Member for Corporate Services and Neighbourhoods
Report of: Head of Legal & Governance Reform Author : Michael Garraway
Author Email: Tel: 01706 924716 [email protected]
1 Purpose of Report
1.1 To consider the appointments, for the 2014/15 Municipal Year of the Chair and Vice Chair of the Township Sub-Committees; the appointment of Members to Pennines Township’s Sub-Committees; and the appointment to various Working Groups and Other Bodies.
2 Recommendations
2.1 The Township Committee consider the composition and appointments of Members to the Pennines Township Delegated and Funding Sub- Committee and the Pennines Township Planning Sub-Committee;
2.2 The Township Committee considers the appointment of Chair and Vice Chair of the above mentioned Sub-Committees;
2.3 The Township Committee appoint Members to the Township Working Groups/Forums as detailed within paragraph 3.3;
2.4 The Township Committee appoint Members to the various “Other Bodies” as Detailed in paragraph 3.4.
2.5 Reasons for Recommendation
The appointment of Sub-Committees is required to enable the undertaking of delegated functions
3 Background
3.1 At the Council meeting held on 18th May 2011 Council resolved that the allowances of the Chairs of Planning Sub-Committees be merged with those of Vice-Chairs of Township Committees.
3.2 Members are asked to make appointments of Chair, Vice-Chair, Members and
Page 74 Substitutes to Township Sub-Committees. In relation to the appointment of Substitute Members, the Committee are asked to note that the number of substitute Members appointed by a Political Group to any Committee or Sub- Committee should not exceed the number of ordinary seats held by that Group on that Committee or Sub- Committee, or three Substitute Members in total.
(a) Pennines Township Delegated & Funding Sub-Committee The Sub-Committee exercises either delegated powers or acts on any matter within the Committee’s Terms of Reference on which it is essential to take a decision. Members are requested to determine the composition of the Sub- Committee, the 2014/15 membership was comprised of all twelve Members of the Township Committee.
Members are also requested to formally appoint the Chair and Vice-Chair of the Sub-Committee. In 2014/15 The Chair was Councillor Hussain and the Vice-Chair was Councillor Emsley.
(b) Pennines Township Planning Sub-Committee In 2014/15 eight Members (on the basis of 2 Members per Ward) and four substitute Members were appointed to the Pennines Township Planning Sub- Committee as follows: - Councillors Emsley (Chair), Hartley (Vice-Chair), Brett, Clegg, Darnbrough, Mir, Rodgers and Stott.
Councillors Blundell, Dearnley and Hussain were appointed as substitute Members.
Members are requested to formally appoint the Chair and Vice-Chair of the Sub-Committee. In 2014/15 The Chair was Councillor Emsley and the Vice- Chair was Councillor Hartley.
3.3 Working Groups : Members are requested to consider appointments to the following Working Groups/meetings.
(a) Ward Area Forum Meetings The three Ward Members attend, as available, their respective Ward Forums. In 2014/2015 only Milnrow and Newhey Area Forum continued to meet on a regular basis. In 2015/16 new Ward Pact Meetings will be established in the remaining wards.
(b) Township Services Groups The Township Services Groups, which consider devolved services in line with the Township priorities. At the meeting of the Township Committee held on 21st May 2013, the Committee agreed to a proposal to combine the People and Place Service Groups and to incorporate a Pennines Township informal scrutiny function within the terms of reference. In 2014/15 the membership of the Township Service Groups comprised twelve Members as follows: -
Service Group 1 (Regeneration and Facilities) - Councillors Butterworth (Chair), Blundell, Brett, Clegg, Darnbrough, Dearnley, Emsley, Hartley, Hussain, Mir, Rodgers and Stott
Service Group 2 (Highways and Environment) comprised Councillors Hussain, Emsley, Blundell, Brett, Butterworth, Clegg, Darnbrough, Dearnley, Hartley, Mir, Rodgers and Stott;
Page 75
(c) Pennines Township Communication Development Group The Township is requested to appoint Members to the Pennines Township Communication Development which is to be established with the remit to improve on customer service and good practise within the Township.
3.4 Other Bodies Members are requested to consider appointments to the following bodies:-
(a) Ellenroad Trust Limited The Pennines Township Committee is requested to appoint four Trustees to the Ellenroad Trust Limited. Councillors Brett, Butterworth, Rodgers and Stott were appointed in 2014/15.
(b) MoorEnd Development Trust The Township Committee is requested to appoint a representative to the Trust’s Committee of Management in compliance with the MoorEnd Development Trust’s Memorandum and Articles of Association, and in 2014/15 Councillor Hartley was appointed.
(c) Township Older Person’s Champion The Township Committee is requested to appoint one Member to serve as the Township Older Persons Champion. In 2014/15 this was Councillor Darnbrough.
Alternatives considered
3.5 There were no alternatives considered. The proper appointment of Sub- Committees is required to permit the undertaking of delegated functions in accordance with statutory and procedural requirements. Appointments to Working Groups and Other Bodies are required to enable the Township Committee to undertake and respond to the full range of issues relevant to the Township.
4 Financial Implications
4.1 There are no financial implications to this report.
5 Legal Implications
5.1 The appointment of Sub-Committees is required to enable the undertaking of delegated Council functions and the Constitution of the Council requires the Township Committee to appoint Chairs and Vice Chairs of Sub-Committees.
6 Personnel Implications
6.1 There are no personnel implications to this report.
7 Corporate Priorities
7.1 The Vision and Blueprint for Rochdale Council 2014/15 retains the Township Committees and will devolve a range of services for the Township’s direction, which will be managed through the annual Township Plans by the Township Committee.
8. Risk Assessment Implications
8.1 Not applicable
Page 76
9. Equalities Impacts
9.1 Workforce Equality Impacts Assessment There are no workforce equality issues arising from this report.
9.2 Equality/Community Impact Assessments There are no equality/community issues arising from this report.
There are no background papers for this report
Page 77