THE FUTURE OF HORWICH

THE FUTURE OF HORWICH 

SEEKING A FAIRER DEAL FOR OUR COMMUNITY

A little about us 


Questions for the leader of Bolton Council, Councillor Morris. 

30 October 2014 

Prepared by the following Horwich Community Groups: 

Horwich First, Horwich Loco Works Action Group, Friends of Horwich Football 

and Horwich RMI Cricket Club. 

Email Contact: horwichfirst@gmail.com 


Seeking a Fairer Deal for our Community 2

CONTENTS 

1. SUSTAINABILITY 

2. LOCAL TRANSPORT 

3. EDUCATION 

4. HEALTH 

5. SPORTS AND RECREATION 

6. HERITAGE 

7. AFFORDABLE HOUSING 

8. CONTAMINATION 

9. HORWICH TOWN CENTRE 

10. COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE LEVY 

(CIL) -vs- SECTION 106 

11. SECTION 106 AGREEMENT 

12. TRANSFER OF SERVICES 

13. BOUNDARIES AND WARDS 

14. CONCLUSION 

Dear Councillor Morris, 

Many thanks for agreeing to meet us to discuss 

our concerns about Horwich. These mainly 

concern the recent and proposed growth in the 

town and its ability to keep pace with the expected 

demands which will be placed on its transport, 

education, health & welfare, sport & recreation and 

cultural & heritage facilities. 

As you will be aware, Horwich has a proud 

tradition based on its railway heritage which it 

is keen to preserve. It was an independent and 

self-supporting town before Local Government 

reorganisation in 1974 and there are many 

people who believe it has not had its fair share of 

investment and support from Bolton Council for 

many years. The Middlebrook development has 

certainly benefited the area but at the expense 

of the prosperity of Horwich Town Centre and 

in these financially constrained times, Horwich 

Town Council has become increasingly powerless 

and penniless when it comes to influencing local 

affairs. 

There is certainly a growing feeling that Bolton 

Council is becoming increasingly ‘centralist’ in 

its outlook as it struggles to maintain the town 

centre as a viable commercial entity. The recently 

quoted figures of over £10 million being spent 

on the Town Hall, precinct and surrounding 

streets together with the massive investment in 

Bolton One and the College & University serve 

to emphasise this point. There is no public 

investment on anything like this scale in any 

of the ‘outlying districts’. You might argue that 

this ‘centralised’ investment is necessary for 

the future prosperity/attractiveness of the town 

centre and therefore the Borough as a whole but, 

on top of the lack of investment elsewhere, it is 

also ‘sucking the lifeblood’ out of facilities in the 

surrounding areas and resulting in the closure of 

places like Horwich Market, Horwich College and 

potentially Horwich Baths/Leisure Centre. All this 

is happening when a mass of new housing is about 

to descend on Horwich! 

With regards to the recent poll we carried out 

asking whether ‘Horwich would be better off 

without Bolton’, out of the 500 people who voted, 

82% voted yes and there was an equal split (9%) 

between those that said no or don’t know. This was 

a sample poll which was promoted on a variety 

of Horwich based community Facebook sites that 

have a fairly representative demographic within 

the town. Extrapolate those figures and you have 

an overwhelming sense of dissatisfaction within 

Horwich. 

The purpose of this Poll was to highlight a clear 

disconnect between the people of Horwich and 

Bolton Council. During a recent visit to Horwich by 

BBC North West Tonight they where unable to find 

a single person on that day who supported Bolton. 

There is a rising tide of dissatisfaction concerning 

all manner of issues that the people of Horwich 

feel Bolton Council have ignored, over-ruled or 

neglected, this in our opinion is not healthy and 

needs to be addressed. 



This then brings us to the questions we would like to 

ask about Bolton Council’s commitment to Horwich 

over the next few years, which are as follows: 

1. SUSTAINABILITY 

Following the approval of Horwich Vision’s planning 

application which includes 1700 houses and 20 acres 

of employment and retail space on the former Loco 

Works site (equivalent to a small new town of c.5000 

people) together with another 1000+ houses ‘in the 

pipeline’ on allocated and ‘windfall’ sites (this does 

not include the proposed development at Horwich 

Golf Club). Horwich will see its population increase 

by an estimated 8-10,000 people in the next decade 

and will no doubt continue to grow as Bolton Council 

expand upon its draft allocation plans further. 

We as a community do not see a matching 

commitment to provide the necessary transport, 

education, health/welfare, and sport/recreation 

facilities. It certainly isn’t contained in the 

information provided by the developers, Horwich 

Vision. So where is it to come from and when? 

2. LOCAL TRANSPORT 

All this proposed development relies on the 

upgrading of Chorley New Road/De Havilland 

Way A6 & the M61 Junction. We are told that the 

proposed upgrades will be phased in according to 

the numbers of houses built at Rivington Chase but 

everyone knows that Chorley New Road is already 

overloaded at peak times and these proposals do not 

take account of the extra 1000 houses which will be 

built nearby, all feeding traffic onto Chorley New 

Road. Why are the traffic models not being re-run 

to take account of ALL the likely growth in the area 

(and that includes the recently-approved Bolton 

Wanderers Macron Stadium developments) and why 

aren’t the proposed improvements being introduced 

BEFORE the traffic situation gets any worse not 

somewhere down the line? What is your response to 

this? 

As we’re sure you can appreciate, we are a little 

perplexed to read that in 2008 Bolton Council’s 

Employment Land Study (Transport Infrastructure) 

highlighted ‘serious concerns about the main and 

secondary road network, in particular in Horwich 

and around Bolton Town Centre’ - clearly raising the 

issue of capacity. That was 7 years ago and the traffic 

situation has obviously worsened since this report 

was published. In addition, in a pre-application 

discussion with Network Rail, access onto Chorley 

New Road was rejected on the grounds that the 

road was ‘at capacity’ (as stated in the ORR disposal 

notice). 

Why is it then that a recent highways study in 2014, 

which formed part of the application for the Horwich 

Loco Works development, appears to contradict these 

previous findings over capacity. How can this be 

explained? 

If as we suspect, traffic congestion in Horwich has 

increased since 2008, then we must conclude that 

the traffic model used in support of Horwich Vision’s 

planning application is incorrect. Please investigate 

this, and if this is the case, then we ask that you 

insist on a review of the traffic modelling and the 

S106 funding agreement relating to highways and 

congestion triggers. 

As you will no doubt be aware, road traffic in 

the UK has risen by 25% in the last 15 years with 

an estimated 10% annual increase predicted in 

forthcoming years. With the expected concentration 

of house building, employment and retail space 

within Horwich this figure will be very much higher 

than the national average creating even greater 

congestion along Chorley New Road/ De Havilland 

Way and at the primary pinch points throughout 

Horwich. What is the Council’s solution to this 

problem? 

NB This increase in congestion may also deter 

companies from relocating to Horwich’s existing & 

proposed employment zones. What is your response 

to this? 

3. EDUCATION 

We are told that a new Primary School will be 

required (the existing ones are already at capacity) 

and that additional secondary provision will also be 

required – has anybody asked RBHS or St. Joseph’s 

where this might go? Due to financial viability 

concerns we are told that the Primary School will 

be OFF- SITE (thereby exacerbating peak-time 

traffic congestion). This seems to be a short-sighted 

decision given the ‘spare capacity’ available in the 

‘heritage core’ buildings and where is the preplanning 

for all the other developments and the 

impact these will have on educational provision? 



4. HEALTH 

Having spoken to the largest GP surgery in Horwich 

they seem to have grave concerns regarding not only 

the level of funding but also the manner of its phased 

release. This ‘drip, drip’ approach to funding defies 

logic when you consider the influx of new residents, 

not just from this proposed development but from 

all the developments which will commence during 

the same period. This practice alone has seen an 

increase of approximately 732 patients in the past 12 

months, which have no doubt come from the present 

programme of housing development happening 

throughout the town. This 12 monthly patient increase 

will pale into insignificance when all the other 

developments commence alongside Rivington Chase. 

It appears to us that there is a certain amount of 

financial ‘buck passing’ regarding funding and this 

needs to be challenged so to secure investment 

for all the Local GP surgeries, enabling them to 

manage effectively the anticipated population growth 

(8-10,000) through some ‘joined-up’ thinking and a 

planned approach. Health provision like educational 

provision cannot be left to chance. 

Horwich has unfortunately never been regarded as 

a high priority for capital investment by the CCG 

or previously by the PCT as it was not deemed to 

be a deprived area. The largest GP practices have 

not receive any Capital Funding to date to cater for 

their existing patients, and there doesn’t appear to 

be any in the pipeline. How does this tally with both 

the Councils and developers assurances that Health 

Provision will be delivered? 

As the architects of this proposed growth, will 

Bolton Council take a more proactive role in finding 

a workable solution both practically and financially 

to allow these GP surgeries to expand and therefore 

cope with growing demand? We understand that 

Bolton Council owns land in Horwich which might be 

suitable both financially and geographically for a new 

state-of-art medical centre? 

5. SPORTS AND RECREATION 

Since 1974 Horwich has lost a substantial number of 

sporting facilities from bowling greens, tennis courts, 

cricket and football pitches as well as large amounts 

of open recreational space. Most recently we have 

witnessed the partial loss of Green Lane playing field, 

Horwich Technical College football pitch and the 

recreational/play area behind Berne Avenue. 

We have serious concerns that with a planned 

population increase of c5,000 from the 

re-development of Horwich Loco Works and a 

further population increase of approximately 

4-5,000 from other developments within the town 

there is little or NO funding proposed for new or 

existing sporting facilities to accommodate an extra 

10,000 residents. 

The recent Officer’s Report on Rivington Chase stated 

that ‘no new playing field provision is required’ 

which is in direct contradiction to the Councils’ own 

reports and Sport England’s report. Clearly there 

is a deficiency (according to national standards) and 

this needs to remedied and remedied ON SITE where 

it will be needed. Since the developers will no doubt 

argue that they cannot use valuable residential land, 

wouldn’t it be more practical for additional sporting 

facilities to come out of the over-generous allocation 

of ‘ecological’ open space set aside between the new 

development and Red Moss. Can you review the 

green space allocation with a view to setting aside 

some of this land for sporting facilities, in particular 

an adult size football pitch which can be run and 

managed locally? 

The Council might wish to argue that they have 

invested in Bolton Wanders FC and Bolton Arena but 

we would like to point out that this has been done 

to the detriment of Horwich town facilities partly 

because Bolton Wanders FC have no pitches to hire 

out and the prohibitive cost/lack of availability of the 

Bolton Arena facilities has caused both hardship and 

disruption to the local football leagues. 

At the present time, Horwich has just a single 

Council run adult football pitch, which in our view 

is poorly maintained. Will you commit to additional 

maintenance of this pitch? 

We also have concerns regarding the findings 

presented in and subsequent lack of action resulting 

from Bolton Council’s ‘2007 Open Space, Sports & 

Recreational Study Assessment’ which highlighted 

a lack of provision for Allotments, Green Space, 

Recreational Areas and Sporting Facilities within 

Horwich. Since the delivery of this report 8 years ago 

not a single recommendation has been actioned or 

implemented leaving the community feeling shortchanged 

yet again. 

We would also like to make a ‘formal complaint’ 

regarding the misuse of the DRAFT Report, ‘2014 

Playing Pitch Strategy Assessment ’. As Council 



Leader you will be aware that to date this report has 

still not been presented to Council for final approval 

and we have already reported 6 major errors within 

the ‘draft report’. Knowing that these inaccuracies 

existed how can the Council justify the use of this 

‘draft report’ on two important occasions: 

i) As supporting evidence in a Hearing with the 

Planning Inspector into the Housing Allocation 

Plan in May 2014 - which invariably allowed him 

to make uninformed decisions to the detriment of 

Horwich’s green spaces and football pitches. 

ii) In support of Horwich Vision’s application 

which led to a decision in which the developer 

was not required to contribute funding towards 

sporting facilities off site based on an inaccurate 

assumption that ‘no new playing field provision is 

required’ as detailed in the Officers Report. 

Will you now undertake the following actions: make 

the necessary corrections to the ‘2014 Playing Pitch 

Strategy Assessment’ and in light of these review your 

decision and seek an additional contribution from the 

developer for sporting facilities on and off site? 

Having one of only two public swimming baths in 

the Borough we would like to know the future plans 

for Horwich Leisure Centre when Serco’s’ contract 

expires in 2019? Is there any truth in the rumour 

that Horwich will lose these facilities after this 

contract expires? 

When sports facilities are being lost or not provided 

in Horwich, is it true that Bolton Council has given 

or leased land at a non-commercial rate to Bolton 

Wanderers? 

6. HERITAGE 

After all the fine words uttered about the importance 

of the heritage of the site and its Conservation Area 

status, it was particularly disappointing to find that 

(again because of financial viability issues) there 

was no money available for the preservation of the 

‘heritage core’ buildings in the early years of the 

Rivington Chase development - which will inevitably 

lead to their demise unless new uses can be found. 

This surely goes against Bolton’s Core Strategy 

Development Plan in which it clearly states in Policy 

OA1 ‘The council and its partners will: Conserve and 

enhance the character of the existing landscape and 

physical environment, especially the conservation 

areas at Horwich Town Centre, Horwich Loco Works 

and Wallsuches’. 

All the more reason for the new facilities in the 

‘heritage core’ area to be accommodated in these 

buildings rather than in new ones. Will you ensure 

that this requirement is legally imposed on the 

developer? 

7. AFFORDABLE HOUSING 

We are told that the local community is in desperate 

need of affordable housing and yet again the 

developers have been granted special consideration in 

order to ensure the viability of the scheme by being 

allowed to defer the building of a single affordable 

house until (8 years/849th house) at which point the 

situation (profitablility) will be reviewed. Surely a 

Labour-run Council cannot condone a situation where 

only the wealthy can afford to live in this area? 

In light of the recent ruling by the Planning 

Inspectorate on the supply of affordable housing by 

Redrow on the Swallowfield site, which would appear 

to create a precedent for developers to challenge all 

such provision nationwide, what is Bolton Council 

prepared to do to ensure that housing for ALL income 

groups is provided in Horwich as part of this major 

programme of new development? 

Is there a guarantee in place that the delivery of 

desperately needed affordable homes for those on low 

incomes will not be delayed beyond the (8 years/849th 

house) and certainly not be left until the final phase of 

the development 15 years after it commences? 

Can we also have a commitment that within the 

delivery of affordable housing a proportion is set 

aside to reflect the ageing population with suitable 

accommodation for our elderly residents? 

8. CONTAMINATION 

As you have no doubt heard, behind all the above 

concerns over the provision of necessary facilities to 

support ALL the new development that is proposed 

in Horwich over the next 10-15 years, there is one 

issue that will not go away and that is the treatment of 

contamination on the former Loco Works site. 

The serious contamination including asbestos from 

over 100 years unregulated industrial manufacturing 

and waste disposal on the Loco Works site is a very 

serious concern for the residents of Horwich and it is 

clear that far more detailed investigation is necessary 

to fully determine the actual contaminants on the site 

and the extent & position of them. 



In 2001 Bolton Council issued its Contaminated Land 

Strategy Document. Why has this not been updated 

for 13 years (despite it stating it should be reviewed 

annually)? Surely this should have been done prior 

to this application being considered to ensure the 

application complied with current DEFRA & other 

government guidance on Contaminated Land & its 

development. 

Why was the decision on the development not 

deferred until the Strategy had been updated 

and how can the Council guarantee the proposed 

remediation strategy is correct when it has used 

a severely outdated 13 year old document as a 

reference? 

Since this Strategy was approved in 2001 and in 

light of further disclosure from Bolton Council, why 

has the Loco Works site NEVER been identified, 

appraised or designated by the Local Authority as 

Contaminated Land as per PtIIA Environmental 

Protection Act 1990, when it is clearly contaminated 

with 1000’s of tons of carcinogenic asbestos and 

many other dangerous pollutants. This contamination 

is not just buried on site but during its 100 years 

of industrial activity dust and asbestos fibres would 

have accumulated in voids and cavities inside the 

buildings and the ‘fallout’ from historic processes 

would have allowed asbestos fibres and dust to settle 

within the surrounding land. 

Having never been identified, appraised or 

designated as contaminated the site would therefore 

not come under the same scrutiny for testing 

or monitoring. This has allowed it to continue 

unchecked. Buildings have been demolished and 

surrounding land interfered with without the 

correct ‘accompanying Risk Assessments/ Method 

Statements’ being implemented. This could have 

exposed both the employees of the businesses on 

site and the community at large to contamination 

from carcinogenic asbestos fibres and other 

dangerous airborne pollutants from the Human 

Health Receptor’s already there. To our knowledge 

there has been NO TESTING on site of employees, 

airbourne dust particles or the fabric of the buildings 

to determine either way. I’m sure the community of 

Horwich will find this level of oversight appalling. 

What is your response to this? 

Both the planning application and the ORR 

documents show the land IS contaminated so why is 

the site not on the register now? Will you commit to 

its inclusion onto the register? 

Has the designation as a ‘special site’ due to waste 

acid tars (i.e. coal tars from coal cracking which in 

turn negatively react to the clay base of the site) been 

considered and if not, why not, considering all the 

industrial processes that have occurred on this site? 

Given the seriousness of the contamination present, 

surely it is in the Council and public interest that an 

independent body such as the Environment Agency 

take control of the investigation and identify & 

oversee the necessary remediation to ensure public 

health is fully protected. Why is this not being 

implemented? 

Has the Council ensured that adequate liability & 

indemnity insurance is in place by ALL parties to 

protect the employees and the public and have they 

ensured that the contamination issues on this site, 

the investigations & the remediations are covered by 

this insurance? 

Planning permission has been given for demolition 

of buildings on the site: These buildings were used 

for the installation and removal of asbestos in the 

locomotives and carriages and contained asbestos 

as insulation and pipe lagging. What tests have 

been conducted on the buildings to ensure that dust 

and fibre accumulations in voids and cavities of the 

buildings including the mortar and brickwork of the 

buildings do not contain any asbestos fibres? 

What measures will be taken to protect people during 

the demolition from contaminated dust and will 

accompanying Risk Assessments/Method Statements 

be available for public scrutiny? 

Some knowledgeable residents believe the cost of 

remediating the land correctly & fully could put 

the viability of the whole development in jeopardy. 

Having given planning permission, the Council has 

a legal duty to ensure that the WHOLE site is now 

remediated whether the development goes ahead 

in full, part or not at all; If any of the phases do not 

go ahead, how is the contamination or remaining 

contamination going to be remediated and who will 

be responsible for it? 

Given the land involved has a number of owners 

how is the responsibility and the cost of the 

remediation going to be split particularly if parts 

of the development do not proceed? Network Rail, 

Armstrongs and Hong Kong Racing are currently 

legally responsible for the costs of remediating their 

land even if it is sold to Horwich Vision. 



Are there measures in place to stop Horwich Vision 

from developing the least contaminated areas of land 

and building their 849 houses were the remediation 

costs would be significantly lower and then declaring 

the rest of the development unviable? This would 

leave untreated the land owned by Bluemantle 

where the highest concentration of known asbestos 

is located both in the tips and within the buildings 

themselves and where decontamination costs are 

potentially the highest. 

Did the Local Authority (Bolton) adopt the 

“Precautionary Principle” to this site in its decision 

making? 

We have had promises of a Liaison Group to 

monitor how the contamination will be dealt with, 

how it’s investigated, the remediation methodology 

and ongoing site monitoring. Can you confirm 

the Council’s commitment to forming this Liaison 

Group, that it will be put in place before any work or 

demolition begins on any part of the site and that we 

will be invited to participate? 

As we are sure you can appreciate, especially in 

light of the disclosure that this site has never been 

determined as contaminated with all the risks and 

dangers to human health this presents, the people 

of Horwich have little faith and trust in the agencies 

who should have taken responsibility for it decades 

ago. The developers/owners of the site have so 

far shown scant regard for HSE Regulation 4 of 

the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012 whilst 

undertaking their ‘duty to manage’ and their recent 

actions concerning the ‘erecting shop’ have in fact 

made matters worse. 

There is no getting away from the fact that this 

site is seriously contaminated. We therefore would 

like to see an independent agency/consultancy 

appointed to corroborate all the environmental 

examinations/testing, remediation methodologies 

and regular monitoring throughout the lifetime of 

this development funded by the Council and obliged 

to make regular public reports. What would your 

response be to this? 

If Horwich Vision are unable to complete the 

development and walk away after developing the 

least contaminated parts of the site, has Bolton 

Council set in place any contingency plans to make 

sure the rest of the site is safely remediated? 

9. HORWICH TOWN CENTRE 

As recent as the mid 1990s Horwich town centre was 

a vibrant and prosperous town centre presenting a 

diverse shopping experience that catered for every 

need. The closure of Railway Works in 1983 did have 

an impact but nothing on the scale of the decision 

to allow Middlebrook to be built. Bolton Council 

offered to ‘support’ its fragile economy when the 

Middlebrook development was built by ensuring 

that competing retailers would not be allowed to 

open there but those promises have been broken. 

Horwich Town Centre like Bolton Town Centre has 

struggled in recent years. It is apparent from the 

multi-million pound investment in Bolton Town 

centre that this problem is being addressed but as 

far as we can see there is no matching financial 

commitment or investment for Horwich Town Centre. 

If anything we are seeing investment withdrawn as 

the Council has in recent years closed down the town 

market and the public toilets and there has been no 

significant investment in the area’s infrastructure or 

environment 

Rivington Chase now poses a further threat to the 

town centre’s viability by offering additional retail 

facilities even closer than Middlebrook. Bolton Council 

will no doubt point to all the benefits of this additional 

retail space and suggest that it won’t have an adverse 

effect on Horwich Town Centre but we have the 

benefit of hindsight now and know that it will. 

After Middlebrook was built Horwich saw its Retail 

Ranking fall 231 places! Since then Middlebrook has 

expanded even further allowing comparison goods 

to be sold with the further addition of restaurants 

and bars in recent years. This has created further 

difficulties for Horwich and now it is going to have 

to compete with a further 6000sq.m2+ (64,583sq. 

ft) of additional retail, bars, restaurants and an 

outdoor market space within the new development. 

This will divert even more footfall towards the new 

retail area and Middlebrook. This surely goes against 

Bolton’s Core Strategy Development Plan in which 

it clearly states in Policy OA1 that ‘The Council and 

its partners will: continue to promote Horwich town 

centre as being suitable for a mix of retailing, leisure, 

employment and housing uses. How can further 

‘unfair’ competition possibly do this? 

What is Bolton Council prepared to do to support 

Horwich Town Centre? Are there any plans of 

a proportional investment similar to that being 

delivered in Bolton to help with improvements to 

facilities and general environmental improvements? 



Could we suggest some financial support to resurrect 

Horwich Chamber of Trade and grant support 

for shopkeepers to improve the exteriors of their 

premises? Could they also tap into the expertise being 

made available to Bolton Council by experts in retail 

and regeneration that could help drive a positive 

agenda for change through the Chamber of Trade? 

Can we also look into the ridiculous situation in 

which Horwich Town centre is being taken over by 

too many of the same retailing outlets. The success 

of any town centre is based on the ‘diversity of retail 

experience’ as seen in places like Bishopthorpe 

Road, York for example. To compound matters, an 

application was refused at Horwich Parish Council for 

yet another Café, but was then approved by Bolton 

Planning Committee. This has to stop. 

Horwich is on the foothills of the West Pennine 

Moors and has the potential to become a fantastic 

‘gateway’ location. Rivington has 841,000+ visitors a 

year in which a large number pass through Horwich, 

presenting a clear opportunity for the town to tap into 

their spending power. Is Bolton Council prepared to 

support Horwich to unlock this potential? 

One way the Council can demonstrate that it cares 

about Horwich is by diverting some of the millions of 

pounds of additional Council Tax Revenue about to 

be generated over the next 10–15 years by the 30% 

increase in the housing stock into local improvements 

to facilities and the environment. What is your 

response to this? 

10. COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE LEVY (CIL) 

-vs- SECTION 106 

We have serious concerns as to why the CIL wasn’t 

applied to this development considering its strategic 

importance and the inevitable impact it will have on 

the local and borough-wide infrastructure. 

It would appear that the developers have been 

granted special consideration in order to ensure 

the viability of the scheme (and guarantee a 20% 

profit). This is clearly demonstrated in the Section 

106 agreement where any payments will either be 

deferred or phased until the 849 house is built (or 

into the 8th year of development). Why has the 

Council felt it necessary to be so accommodating at 

the expense of much-needed infrastructure & facility 

benefits to Horwich 

Has this application been rushed through to avoid 

the developer’s application falling under the CIL 

agreement, which Bolton Council has to legally adopt 

by April 2015? Equally, has the adoption by Bolton 

Council of CIL been delayed for this same reason? 

Bolton Council could have speeded up the approval 

process for the CIL, like many other local authorities 

up and down the country who have already adopted 

CIL, thus maximising the benefit from developments 

such as Rivington Chase. Why hasn’t it? 

Will CIL be adopted by the Government deadline of 6 

April 2015 and will any developments within Horwich 

contribute through the CIL prior to this deadline. If 

so which developments will these be? 

Once the CIL is introduced who will be responsible 

for the distribution of this funding and how will it 

be done? Will Horwich retain the full amount of 

any CIL funding that is delivered through future 

developments and will this be in addition to the 

existing Town Council Precept? 

11. SECTION 106 AGREEMENT 

The Section 106 Agreement appears to be a poor 

substitute for CIL. 

In the interests of transparency would you be willing 

to calculate a comparison based on Bolton Council 

own ‘Draft Charging Schedule from 2013’ to illustrate 

the difference in contributions between the CIL and 

the S106 agreement proposed for Rivington Chase? 

Will the community of Horwich have the opportunity 

to scrutinise the final Section 106 agreement and its 

legal provisions before it is signed? 

12. TRANSFER OF SERVICES 

We would like to know your thoughts about the 

possibility of Horwich Town Council taking over 

responsibility for certain Council-run services e.g. 

Sports and Recreation Facilities, Community Centres, 

Parking Enforcement, Play Areas and Parks, Green 

Open Spaces and Cemeteries? This we believe may 

take some of the pressure off Bolton Council and 

may help generate much needed income for the 

town using a subsidy from Horwich Business Rates, 

Council Tax or any future Community Infrastructure 

Levy (or even a contribution from all 3). 

Would you also be open to discussing the possibility 

of devolving certain powers back to Horwich Town 



Council in relation to local issues & management? e.g. 

local planning, Horwich Leisure Centre, Green Lane 

Playing Fields. 

NB. Horwich Leisure Centre and Green Lane Playing 

Fields are two examples of sporting facilities that 

were paid for by the people of Horwich. We would 

like your views on returning them to Horwich Town 

Council ownership. 

13. BOUNDARIES AND WARDS 

Have there been any discussions about changing 

local ward boundaries? If so, what would be the 

implications for local representation? 

14. CONCLUSION 

The above issues are of great concern in relation to the future development 

of Horwich and its ability to cope with the demands of such a rapid growth in 

population within the next decade. Executed properly, this major programme of 

development could be of real benefit to the town. 

Just as we can see a huge amount of effort and investment going into the 

regeneration of Bolton Town Centre, we ask that the same amount of energy and 

investment is put into the future development of Horwich as a WHOLE. 

We recognise the strategic importance of Horwich to both Bolton Council and the 

wider region, but it appears the ones driving the agenda are the developers not 

Bolton Council. This balance of power has to change for the benefit of the town. 

We obviously want to feel confident that Bolton Council are looking seriously and 

comprehensively at all these issues and are planning ahead to ensure the right 

outcome not only for Horwich but also the wider community. 

Thank you for taking the time to read this, we look forward to hearing your 

response to our questions and concerns. 

Kindest Regards, 

On behalf of the following Horwich Community Groups: 

Horwich First, Horwich Loco Works Action Group, Friends of Horwich Football 

and Horwich RMI Cricket Club. 




SEEKING A FAIRER DEAL FOR OUR COMMUNITY

THE FUTURE OF HORWICH

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?