DOCSLIB.ORG

Commentary on the LGBCE Draft Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Commentary on the LGBCE Draft Report Commentary on the LGBCE Draft Report and Revised Proposals for the Warding arrangements and Parish Boundaries in Derbyshire Dales This report has been agreed by the following Groups and District Councillors Derbyshire Dales Liberal Democrats Derbyshire Dales Constituency Labour Party Cllr Jacqui Alison (Independent) Cllr Rob Archer (Lib Dem) Cllr Martin Burfoot (Lib Dem) Cllr Sue Burfoot (Lib Dem) Cllr Neil Buttle (Green) Cllr Paul Cruise (Lib Dem) Cllr Steve Flitter (Lib Dem) Cllr Clare Gamble (Independent) Cllr David Hughes (Lib Dem) Cllr Peter O’Brien (Labour) Cllr Mike Ratcliffe (Labour) Cllr Peter Slack (Labour) Cllr Steve Wain (Lib Dem) It was collated by Peter Dobbs (Lib Dems) [email protected] March 2021 Commentary on LGBCE Report on Ward Boundary changes March 2021 General Comments Communication of findings. We would have found it helpful if a list of the proposed parishes in each ward had been provided as a summary. Instead, it has to be deduced from the text. It would also have helped if a detailed map showing these parishes for each ward had been given – or at least the option of zooming in on a larger map to study them in detail The maps provided that showed the revised wards in three towns were helpful in this respect although were not easy to find. They are also significantly out of date (2016) with the one for Ashbourne failing to show at least four major areas of house building. Variance. This is just one of the three considerations made by LGBC in their review but we feel that the draft scheme does have some large variances. In particular we take issue with variances in the 8-10% range where these occur in exactly the way that is least desirable due to potential future growth. Overall the draft LGBC has a % variance of -53.2% & +50.6% compared to our original ‘joint’ scheme of -33.5% & +43.6%. Community cohesion. Arguably this is at least as important as excessive variance. We believe it is important to recognise the distinction between rural and urban communities and try to avoid where possible urban areas having very extensive rural hinterlands. This may however be difficult where parishes are sparsely populated. We suggest that some of the new Ward proposals have resulted in both large variances and a lack of community cohesion; Bakewell is an example of this. Impact of planned large developments not completed by 2026. In the Local Plan there is a target to restrict housing development to certain areas in the Derbyshire Dales, specifically most development to be in the towns in Tier 1 of the development hierarchy. Hence we feel that a large positive variance should be flagged when it is for a Tier 1 ward since any large positive variance in 2026 is likely to be even larger in future years. Similarly a large negative variance seems to be less than ideal for an area that will see very little development in the future due to its position in the development hierarchy. Peak District National Park. The objective of not combining ‘Peak Park’ parishes with others obviously has merit and for much of the Dales is straightforward to achieve. However in some parts of the Dales the Parish boundaries are less obliging and this constraint can generate higher variances than would perhaps be desirable. Data Limitations. Obviously estimating the size of the electorate in parishes for 2026 requires some guesswork. However as the figures are scrutinised, significant errors and omissions are appearing. Clearly this is not the fault of the LGBC. However, since this data formed such a crucial part of the exercise, it is perhaps worth having it reviewed before the final warding arrangements are unveiled. Detailed commentary on warding arrangements In the tables below we have placed our revised proposals (in blue), and LGBC’s proposals side by side for comparison. Relation to Local Plan. The DDDC Local Plan has designated areas for development with the Market Towns (Ashbourne, Matlock and Wirksworth) in Tier 1, targeted for the majority of new housing. There are a total of 5 Tiers. We have noted areas affected by such development by an * in our discussion of specific wards below. NORTH In the North, we propose one minor change to the LGBC proposal and one more significant one. The first is to move Abney Civil Parish to the Hathersage ward and the second to move Wardlow to Calver and Longstone. We acknowledge the significant affect this has on variance, taking it outside the target range proposed by LGBC. Bradwell Joint proposal LGBC Proposal Parishes Cllrs Electorate Parishes Cllrs Electorate Bradwell 1 1522 Bradwell 1 1669 Great Hucklow Great Hucklow Grindlow Grindlow Foolow Foolow Hazlebadge Hazlebadge Little Hucklow Little Hucklow Wardlow Abney & Abney Grange Comments 1. Abney Civil Parish forms a community with Offerton and Highlow and together are closely linked economically and socially with Hathersage. Therefore, it is appropriate that they are in the same District ward. We have therefore placed them the Hathersage & Eyam ward. 2. Wardlow is a ‘poor fit’ in terms of community cohesion. We acknowledge that these changes will result in a high variance but feel this is an example where community cohesion should take priority Calver and Longstone Joint proposal LGBC Proposal Parishes Cllrs Electorate Parishes Cllrs Electorate Calver 1 1945 Calver 1 1839 Curbar Curbar Froggatt Froggatt Hassop Hassop Rowland Rowland Little Longstone Little Longstone Great Longstone Great Longstone Wardlow Comments On reflection we feel Wardlow is better staying with the Longstones with which it has long-standing social and economic links, none of which exist with Bradwell. Hathersage Joint proposal LGBC Proposal Parishes Cllrs Electorate Parishes Cllrs Electorate Hathersage 2 3662 Hathersage 2 3662 Grindleford Grindleford Eyam Eyam Offerton Offerton Highlow Highlow Abney & Abney Abney & Abney Grange Grange Stoney Middleton Stoney Middleton Comments As indicated above Abney Civil Parish actually works with Offerton and Highlow as a community and so Abney & Abney Grange parish should be in this ward. We understand that the great majority of residents in Abney and Abney Grange wish to remain in the Hathersage and Eyam Ward, as they have very little social or economic association with Bradwell. We are supportive of the inclusion of Stoney Middleton, which we understand is also the view of the local communities. Tideswell Joint proposal LGBC Proposal Parishes Cllrs Electorate Parishes Cllrs Electorate Tideswell 1 1916 Tideswell 1 1916 Litton Litton Wheston Wheston Comments We agree with the LGBC proposal. MID DERBYSHIRE DALES Bakewell Joint proposal LGBC Proposal Parishes Cllrs Electorate Parishes Cllrs Electorate Bakewell 2 3751 Bakewell 3 4894 Bakewell Bakewell Ashford in the water Ashford in the water Sheldon Sheldon Over Haddon Over Haddon Nether Haddon Nether Haddon Monyash Youlgreave Comments With a variance of -10% the LGBC proposal is inappropriate for an area that will have limited development due to its location in the National Park; it would further result in a geographically large and incohesive Ward. This large negative variance places an unnecessary burden on other ward Cllrs. We do not understand why it was felt there was a need to expand the ward to include adjacent quite significant settlements that have their own identities. Why were the views of Youlgreave PC not taken into consideration? We understand that they do not wish to form a large ward with Bakewell. Surely the main justification in ‘expanding’ a market town ward into its ‘rural fringe’ is where the town has too great an electorate for its current number of Cllrs but not enough to justify an extra one. Here that is not necessary. Bakewell, Sheldon, Ashford and Over Haddon form an established social and economic entity which can be served effectively and efficiently by 2 Cllrs, and achieve good variance. We can understand the concern of Bakewell Town Council at “losing” a District Councillor, but the addition of an extensive rural hinterland will have the effect of diluting representation; however two Councillors focussed on the town itself represents an appropriate outcome of the Review. Bonsall , Winster & South Darley Joint proposal LGBC Proposal Parishes Cllrs Electorate Parishes Cllrs Electorate Bonsall 1 1945 Bonsall 1 1680 Winster Winster Elton Gratton South Darley (less Elton Oaker & Snitterton) Ivonbrook Grange Ivonbrook Grange Ible Ible Harthill Middleton & Smerrill Comments 1. The LGBC proposal introduces a significant variance of -7% for a rural ward unlikely to see much development. 2. Middleton and Smerrill as well as Harthill have more links to Youlgreave than with Bonsall and Winster and should be in Youlgreave ward. 3. We suggest either the transfer of the whole of Oaker and Snitterton parish to Matlock All Saints ward OR the moving of the parish boundary to ensure that all of the proposed large scale Cawdor Quarry and Permanite works developments are within Matlock All Saints. Chatsworth Joint proposal LGBC Proposal Parishes Cllrs Electorate Parishes Cllrs Electorate Baslow 1 1799 Baslow 1 1799 Chatsworth Chatsworth Edensor Edensor Pilsley Pilsley Beeley Beeley Rowsley Rowsley Comments We agree with the LGBC proposal. Hartington & Taddington Joint proposal LGBC Proposal Parishes Cllrs Electorate Parishes Cllrs Electorate Brushfield 1 1754 Brushfield 1 1754 Hartington Town Quarter Hartington Town Quarter Hartington Middle Hartington Middle Quarter Quarter Hartington Nether Hartington Nether Quarter Quarter Taddington Taddington Flagg Flagg Chelmorton Chelmorton Blackwell in the Peak Blackwell in the Peak Comments We agree with the LGBC proposal. Stanton Joint proposal LGBC Proposal Parishes Cllrs Electorate Parishes Cllrs Electorate No equivalent in Stanton 1 1672 our scheme Birchover Northwood & Tinkersley South Darley Comments This has a large negative variance of -7.4% based on the 2026 figures supplied. As it stands, the planned Cawdor Quarry and Permanite Works developments at the extreme southern end of the ward will in time reduce this but with perhaps a third of the electorate having a stronger link with Matlock simply due to geography.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Derbyshire T-Government Management Board
    10. DERBYSHIRE T-GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT BOARD 1. TERMS OF REFERENCE (i) Developing policy and priority Issues in the approach to developing e-government for Derbyshire (ii) To agree the allocation of the ODPM Government on –line grant (iii) To agree the engagement of consultants, staff secondments and use of resources for developmental work on core e- government projects (iv) To agree standards and protocols for joint working and information sharing between authorities. (v) Consider and agree option appraisals and business solutions that will meet common goals. (vi) Recommend and agree procurement arrangements (vii) Determine, where appropriate, lead authority arrangements (viii) Consider any budget provision that individual authorities may need to contribute towards the costs or resource needs of the partnership (ix) Consult the Derbyshire e-government partnership forum on progress (x) To nominate as appropriate representatives of the Board to steer the development of individual E-Government projects (xi) To consider and pursue additional resource funding from Government, EU or other sources and any match funding implications 2. MEMBERSHIP One member together with the Head of Paid Service or Chief Executive from each of the following constituent authorities:- Derbyshire County Council (Lead Authority), Derby City Council, North East Derbyshire District Council, the District of Bolsover, Chesterfield Borough Council, Amber Valley District Council, Erewash Borough Council, South Derbyshire District Council, Derbyshire Dales District Council, High Peak Borough Council, Derbyshire Police Authority, Derbyshire Fire Authority 4/10/1 Named substitutes for any of the above The Peak District National Park Authority be provided with a watching brief 2. FINANCE The Board shall operate under the Financial Regulations and Contract Standing Orders of Derbyshire Council the Lead Authority.
    [Show full text]
  • Ilkeston News
    ILKESTON NEWS May Volunteer Rota Joy Toplis Michael Stone Rex Toplis Margaret Davis Megan Walker Dorothy Ray Christine Stone Tuesday 2nd May Our Speaker today is Ian Maber—Teller of Tales “Laughing My Way Around the World— Having listened to a number of speakers throughout my life, many of whom were quite traditional, I felt that it would be very entertaining to take this whole concept and turn it upside down” Doors open at 9.40 am Compiled and produced by Janis Henshaw email [email protected] 1 Volunteers 2017 If you are unable to volunteer on your scheduled month please make arrangements with another member to take your place and advise Ann Shoebridge who you’ve swapped with and what month that person was scheduled. Alternatively, if you’re unable to help out due to health reasons, please inform Ann who will remove you from the rota. Ann is also aware that some members don’t necessarily attend the monthly main meetings. If this applies to you please contact Ann who will remove you from the rota Refreshments, Meeting & Greeting, Books Rosters 2017 The Rota has now been updated and those members who haven’t renewed their membership have been deleted. Obviously this has a knock-on effect throughout the whole of the year so if you were scheduled to do volunteer duty this year I would ask that you check the following revised table. June July August September Christine Winfield Jean Dyer Maureen Whitbread Anita Crook Gordon Reed Ray Doyle Wayland Rice Sue Attenborough Wendy Coleman Glenda Orchard Wendy Burridge Barbara Brown Angela
    [Show full text]
  • Middleton-By-Wirksworth
    Middleton-by-Wirksworth Conservation Area Appraisal September 2009 MIDDLETON-BY-WIRKSWORTH CONSERVATION AREA APPRAISAL page 1. Introduction 1 2. Summary of Special Interest 1 3. Context 3 • Location • Economic context • Statutory designations • Geology • Plan form 4. Origins & Historic Development of the Area 5 5. Archaeology 16 6. Architectural and Historic Quality 18 • Prevalent & traditional building materials & details • Building types 7. Landscape Setting & Green Spaces 28 8. Spatial Analysis 39 • Significant views and landmarks • Open spaces 9. Character Areas 44 10. Negative Factors 58 11. General Condition of the Area 61 12. Problems, Pressures and Capacity for change 62 13. Planning Policy Context 64 14. Conservation Area Boundary Review 74 15. Useful Information 78 Sections 1-6, 8-12 & 14 prepared by Mel Morris Appendix 1 Statutory Designations Conservation (Listed Buildings & Scheduled Monuments) All photographs within these sections have been taken by Mel Morris Conservation © i MIDDLETON-BY-WIRKSWORTH CONSERVATION AREA APPRAISAL List of Figures Fig. 1 Aerial Photograph Fig. 2 Identification of Character Areas Fig. 3 Statutory Designations Fig. 4 1843 Tithe map of Middleton-by-Wirksworth Reproduced by permission of Derbyshire Record Office Fig. 5 1880 Ordnance Survey map extract Fig. 6 Building Chronology Fig. 7 Historic Landscape Fig. 8 Planning Designations Fig. 9 Trees and Woodlands Fig. 10 Spatial Analysis Fig. 11 Boundary Review—As proposed June 2009 Fig. 12 Boundary—As Approved September 2009 ii MIDDLETON-BY-WIRKSWORTH CONSERVATION AREA APPRAISAL List of Illustrations & Acknowledgements Plate 1. Geological Map of Middleton (Special Sheet, Matlock) Reproduced by permission of the BGS © NERC All rights reserved. IPR/ 107-27CT Plate 2.
    [Show full text]
  • 21 Day Road Trip of the UK for Families
    12 11 139 10 14 9 8 15 67 6 1616 1 4 5 17 2 3 21 day Road trip of the UK for Families The UK is full of exciting, interesting and historical places to visit so it can be hard to know where to start! Just go has put together a 3 week itinerary stopping off at the most popular places to visit in the UK. Whether you want an extensive tour of the UK or just need a little advice on where to go, what to see or campsites local to your destination this will take away some of the work for you so you can sit back and enjoy your holiday! Quick reference 1. Ivinghoe (local campsite) 10. Hadrians’s Wall (Alternative Route) 2. Salisbury via Stonehenge 11. Loch Lomond 3. Devon (Salcombe) 12. Inverness 4. Cornwall 13. Edinburgh Via Stirling 5. Bath 14. Durham Via Alnwick 6. Hereford Via Gloucester 15. York 7. Snowdonia Via Shropshire 16. Cambridge Via Nottingham 8. Buxton 17. Windsor 9. Lake District (Windemere) Just go have compiled the following campsite details within each of the suggested locations. Just go has made every effort to maintain the accuracy of the following information in this pack but cannot be held responsible if any details are incorrect. Any discrepancies you may have are between yourself and the campsite. Just go do not endorse any of the facilities, Just go have approached each campsite within the chosen area and have obtained their permission to be included within this itinerary. www.justgo.uk.com 21 day Road trip of the UK, Families Day 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Proposed Revised Wards for Derbyshire Dales District Council
    Proposed Revised Wards for Derbyshire Dales District Council October 2020 The ‘rules’ followed were; Max 34 Cllrs, Target 1806 electors per Cllr, use of existing parishes, wards should Total contain contiguous parishes, with retention of existing Cllr total 34 61392 Electorate 61392 Parish ward boundaries where possible. Electorate Ward Av per Ward Parishes 2026 Total Deviation Cllr Ashbourne North Ashbourne Belle Vue 1566 Ashbourne Parkside 1054 Ashbourne North expands to include adjacent village Offcote & Underwood 420 settlements, as is inevitable in the general process of Mappleton 125 ward reduction. Thorpe and Fenny Bentley are not Bradley 265 immediately adjacent but will have Ashbourne as their Thorpe 139 focus for shops & services. Their vicar lives in 2 Fenny Bentley 140 3709 97 1855 Ashbourne. Ashbourne South has been grossly under represented Ashbourne South Ashbourne Hilltop 2808 for several years. The two core parishes are too large Ashbourne St Oswald 2062 to be represented by 2 Cllrs so it must become 3 and Clifton & Compton 422 as a consequence there needs to be an incorporation of Osmaston 122 rural parishes into this new, large ward. All will look Yeldersley 167 to Ashbourne as their source of services. 3 Edlaston & Wyaston 190 5771 353 1924 Norbury Snelston 160 Yeaveley 249 Rodsley 91 This is an expanded ‘exisitng Norbury’ ward. Most Shirley 207 will be dependent on larger settlements for services. Norbury & Roston 241 The enlargement is consistent with the reduction in Marston Montgomery 391 wards from 39 to 34 Cubley 204 Boylestone 161 Hungry Bentley 51 Alkmonton 60 1 Somersal Herbert 71 1886 80 1886 Doveridge & Sudbury Doveridge 1598 This ward is too large for one Cllr but we can see no 1 Sudbury 350 1948 142 1948 simple solution.
    [Show full text]
  • Lowland Derbyshire Biodiversity Action Plan 2011-2020
    Published by the Lowland Derbyshire Biodiversity Partnership 2011 Biodiversity Lowland 2011 Derbyshire ‐ 2020 Action Plan Contents Click links to go the various sections of the LBAP Section Quick start Guide Introduction Generic Action Plan Area Action Plans and Targets Action Area 1: Magnesian Limestone Action Area 2: Rother and Doe Lea Valleys Action Area 3: Peak Fringe Action Area 4: Erewash Valley Action Area 5: Claylands Action Area 6: Derby Action Area 7: Trent and Dove Valleys Action Area 8: National Forest area Cumulative Targets UK Priority Habitats—Background Information Farmland Grassland Heathland Wetland Woodland List of Lowland Derbyshire LBAP Partners Appendix 1: Detailed Maps of All Eight Action Areas (with Priority Habitats) these are available as eight 4MB files on CD or from www.derbyshirebiodiversity.org.uk Cover photos, clockwise from top left: Bulfinch. Credit: Laura Whitehead White Admiral. Credit: Debbie Alston Green Lane, north‐east Derbyshire. Credit: Debbie Alston www.derbyshirebiodiversity.org.uk Quick Start Guide 2 Quick Start Guide This Local Biodiversity Action Plan (LBAP) covers the Lowland Derbyshire region for the period 2011 to 2020. It identifies the basic actions we must collectively take if we are to protect and enhance the key biodiversity of this region. The UK Government recognises its international obligations and the economic urgency to protect biodiversity and ecosystems. This LBAP is part of that delivery and local reporting mechanism. Only those habitats and species meeting the UKBAP definitions of ‘Priority Habitat’ or ‘Priority Species’ are included in the targets for the Lowland Derbyshire Action Plans. The history and rationale behind the Local Biodiversity Action Plan is given in the Introduction.
    [Show full text]
  • Agency Information - Environmental Health (V3.0 2020 July) Page 1 of 2
    Information about agencies to be shared in ‘Making Enquiries under S.42’ training 1. Who are we? Environmental Health Service 2. Who are we? Each Local Authority, with the exception of Derbyshire County Council (DCC), has environmental health professionals in the form of Environmental Health Officers (EHOs)/ Environmental Health Practitioners (EHPs)/ Environmental Health Technical Officers (EHTO), Enforcement Officers who can enforce various types of public health, housing, pollution, food and health and safety legislation. They are primarily regulatory officers but do play a major role in protecting public health, maintaining a safe environment and have both technical and scientific expertise to offer support and advice to partnering agencies, businesses, community groups and the public. 3. What do we do? (The below text sets out some of the relevant areas in s.42 enquiries, but is not limited to these items). EHOs/EHPs/EHTOs/Enforcement Officers have a regulatory role in ensuring public safety in a wide number of areas; being responsible for carrying out measures to protect public health, enforcing legislation relating to the natural and built environments that benefit human health and providing support to minimize health and safety hazards. Particular statutory obligations relate to domestic home environments to ensure ‘fitness for habitation’ by the removal of serious hazards (known as Category 1 hazards*) to achieve the ideal standards within a property. The risk of harm to a person may arise given physical and psychological hazards in the home environment i.e. structural collapse, carbon monoxide from defective appliances, or excess cold from poorly heated and insulated homes. Table 1 below indicates some of the key hazard areas which are checked when a property is assessed by an EH Professional.
    [Show full text]
  • Skidmore Lead Miners of Derbyshire, and Their Descendants 1600-1915
    Skidmore Lead Miners of Derbyshire & their descendants 1600-1915 Skidmore/ Scudamore One-Name Study 2015 www.skidmorefamilyhistory.com [email protected] SKIDMORE LEAD MINERS OF DERBYSHIRE, AND THEIR DESCENDANTS 1600-1915 by Linda Moffatt 2nd edition by Linda Moffatt© March 2016 1st edition by Linda Moffatt© 2015 This is a work in progress. The author is pleased to be informed of errors and omissions, alternative interpretations of the early families, additional information for consideration for future updates. She can be contacted at [email protected] DATES Prior to 1752 the year began on 25 March (Lady Day). In order to avoid confusion, a date which in the modern calendar would be written 2 February 1714 is written 2 February 1713/4 - i.e. the baptism, marriage or burial occurred in the 3 months (January, February and the first 3 weeks of March) of 1713 which 'rolled over' into what in a modern calendar would be 1714. Civil registration was introduced in England and Wales in 1837 and records were archived quarterly; hence, for example, 'born in 1840Q1' the author here uses to mean that the birth took place in January, February or March of 1840. Where only a baptism date is given for an individual born after 1837, assume the birth was registered in the same quarter. BIRTHS, MARRIAGES AND DEATHS Databases of all known Skidmore and Scudamore bmds can be found at www.skidmorefamilyhistory.com PROBATE A list of all known Skidmore and Scudamore wills - many with full transcription or an abstract of its contents - can be found at www.skidmorefamilyhistory.com in the file Skidmore/Scudamore One-Name Study Probate.
    [Show full text]
  • 552 HIGH PEAK HUNDRED. Greatest Diversity of Architectural Proportions, No Two Being Exactly Alike
    552 HIGH PEAK HUNDRED. greatest diversity of architectural proportions, no two being exactly alike. The well arranged gardens attached, give an additional charm to this interesting village of rural beauty; every thing tends to show his Grace’s taste, good feeling, and liberal disposition towards those in humble circumstances. The township contains 2255A. 3R. 25P. of land, and in 1851 had 60 houses and 346 inhabitants, of whom 160 were males and 186 females; rateable value £2598 2s. 6d. His Grace the Duke of Devonshire is sole owner. The Church, dedicated to St. Peter, is situated in the centre of the village on elevated ground, and is approached by a flight of steps. It is a venerable stone edifice, with nave, chancel. side aisles, and square tower containing 4 bells. It was given at an early period by Fulcher, ancestor of the Shirleys, to the monastery of Rochester, in Staffordshire. In the chancel is a very elegant monument to the first Earl of Devonshire, which is composed of several figures the size of life sculptured in relief, and of the most elaborate workmanship. A table monument has two recumbent figures, one clothed in the dress of the times, the other representing a skeleton. “ There is something,” says Mr. Rhodes, “strikingly impressive in this representation of a man who appears to have just passed from time into eternity, with all the habiliments of life about him, and the bare ribbed image of Death, which lies at his side, awfully intimating the transition that must soon be made. The sculptor has here bodied forth a lesson of mortality which is extremely simple, yet full of pathos and instruction.” The following is a monumental inscription to Henry, son of Wm.
    [Show full text]
  • Peak District National Park Visitor Survey 2005
    PEAK DISTRICT NATIONAL PARK VISITOR SURVEY 2005 Performance Review and Research Service www.peakdistrict.gov.uk Peak District National Park Authority Visitor Survey 2005 Member of the Association of National Park Authorities (ANPA) Aldern House Baslow Road Bakewell Derbyshire DE45 1AE Tel: (01629) 816 200 Text: (01629) 816 319 Fax: (01629) 816 310 E-mail: [email protected] Website: www.peakdistrict.gov.uk Your comments and views on this Report are welcomed. Comments and enquiries can be directed to Sonia Davies, Research Officer on 01629 816 242. This report is accessible from our website, located under ‘publications’. We are happy to provide this information in alternative formats on request where reasonable. ii Acknowledgements Grateful thanks to Chatsworth House Estate for allowing us to survey within their grounds; Moors for the Future Project for their contribution towards this survey; and all the casual staff, rangers and office based staff in the Peak District National Park Authority who have helped towards the collection and collation of the information used for this report. iii Contents Page 1. Introduction 1.1 The Peak District National Park 1 1.2 Background to the survey 1 2. Methodology 2.1 Background to methodology 2 2.2 Location 2 2.3 Dates 3 2.4 Logistics 3 3. Results: 3.1 Number of people 4 3.2 Response rate and confidence limits 4 3.3 Age 7 3.4 Gender 8 3.5 Ethnicity 9 3.6 Economic Activity 11 3.7 Mobility 13 3.8 Group Size 14 3.9 Group Type 14 3.10 Groups with children 16 3.11 Groups with disability 17 3.12
    [Show full text]
  • Listed Buildings and Scheduled Monuments
    LISTED BUILDINGS AND SCHEDULED MONUMENTS for which DERBYSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL has a MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITY November 2009 *This list includes buildings, bridges and other highway structures and is believed to be correct but notification of errors would be welcomed. Environmental Services Department Shand House Dale Road South Matlock DE4 3RY (01629) 580000 ext 33351 (A Morrison) HIGH PEAK BOROUGH List Grade or SM (Scheduled Monument) Aston - Milepost, Hope Road (OS 1891/8266) 2 - Brough Bridge, Stretfield Road (OS 1839/8265) 2 (See also Brough & Shatton Parish) Bamford - Yorkshire Bridge, Carr Lane (OS 1981/8469) 2 (See also Thornhill Parish) Brough & Shatton - Brough Bridge, Stretfield Road (OS 1838/8266) 2 (See also Aston Parish) Buxton - Former Public Library & Education Offices, The I Crescent - Grin Low Tower, (Soloman's Temple) 2 Poole's Cavern Country Park Castleton - School & Attached Walls & Railings, Back Street 2 (VC/CE) - Milepost, Buxton Road (OS 1261/8315) 2 - Milepost, Buxton Road (OS 1341/8363) 2 - Milepost, Buxton Road (OS 1458/8287) 2 Chapel-en-le-Frith - PPU, Former Primary School, High Street (VC/CE) 2 - Milestone at Tunstead Milton, Manchester Road 2 (OS 0336/8004) - Bridge, Whitehall Terrace 2 (south of White Hall gates) (OS 0372/8215) - Ford Hall Bridge, Malcoff Road (OS 0765/8221) 2 - Milepost, 230 m from Rushup Lane Junction 2 (OS 0943/8256) Charlesworth - Broadbottom Bridge, Long Lane (OS 9966/9375) 2 Edale - Gibralter Bridge, Gibralter Bridge Lane 2 (OS 1232/8602) - Packhorse Bridge, at foot of Jacobs Ladder, 2 off Upper Booth Lane (OS 0883/8619) Glossop - Duke of Norfolks Church of England School 2 Church Street, Old Glossop (VC/CE) - Victoria Hall and Library, Arundel Street/ 2 Talbot Street Adult Education Centre, Talbot Street.
    [Show full text]
  • Faith in Derbyshire
    FaithinDerbyshire Derby Diocesan Council for Social Responsibility Derby Church House Full Street Derby DE1 3DR Telephone: 01332 388684 email: [email protected] fax: 01332 292969 www.derby.anglican.org Working towards a better Derbyshire; faith based contribution FOREWORD I am delighted to be among those acknowledging the significance of this report. Generally speaking, people of faith are not inclined to blow their own trumpets. This report in its calm and methodical way, simply shows the significant work quietly going on through the buildings and individuals making up our faith communities. Such service to the community is offered out of personal commitment. At the same time, it also deserves acknowledgment and support from those in a position to allocate resources, because grants to faith communities are a reliable and cost effective way of delivering practical help to those who need it. Partnership gets results. This report shows what people of faith are offering. With more partners, more can be offered. David Hawtin Bishop of Repton and Convenor of the Derbyshire Church and Society Forum I am especially pleased that every effort has been taken to make this research fully ecumenical in nature, investigating the work done by churches of so many different denominations: this makes these results of even greater significance to all concerned. I hope that a consequence of churches collaborating in this effort will be an increased partnership across the denominations in the future. Throughout their history Churches have been involved in their communities and this continues today. In the future this involvement is likely to result in increasing partnerships, not only with each other but also with other agencies and community groups.
    [Show full text]