DOCSLIB.ORG

East Cambridgeshire Local Plan Examination: Inspector’S Matters, Issues, and Questions for Discussion at the Examination Hearings

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
East Cambridgeshire Local Plan Examination: Inspector’S Matters, Issues, and Questions for Discussion at the Examination Hearings East Cambridgeshire Local Plan Examination: Inspector’s Matters, Issues, and Questions for Discussion at the Examination Hearings Representations: Lichfields on behalf of Gladman Developments Limited Date: 22 May 2018 Our ref: 16168/MS/BHa Subject Matter 3: Objectively Assessed Needs for Housing and Employment Land Issue 1: Whether the Council’s approach to calculating its full, objectively assessed needs is justified, based on up-to-date and reliable evidence, effective, positively prepared, and consistent with national policy? 1.0 Objectively Assessed Need 20. What is the implication of there being a different time period for housing need and employment growth? What is the justification? 1.1 The Council uses different time periods for housing need (2016 to 2036) and employment growth (2014 to 2036). It is clear that this inconsistency in base date has arisen because ‘late in the day’ the Council has chosen to use the proposed draft ‘standard method’ as an assessment of housing need, which has a base date of 2016, rather than its OAN from PE6 which has a base date of 2014. The Council appears to have offered no justification for the application of different time dates. The Vision for the plan is forward looking and appears to overlook the inconsistency in the base date of the delivery of housing and jobs in the District stating that: “In 2036, we will have built a better East Cambridgeshire, accommodating the development of 10,835 new homes and 6,000 jobs”. 1.2 The delivery of housing and jobs are inherently linked in any given location and para 158 of the NPPF requires strategies for them to be integrated. The outcome of not providing sufficient housing to accommodate job growth is unsuitable commuting patterns as people are not able to live close to these new jobs. East Cambridgeshire is, effectively, not planning to meet the needs of housing over the period 2014-2016 but to deliver jobs; it cannot demonstrate that in doing so it will have properly integrated its approach or show that it will not lead to unsustainable patterns of commuting contrary to the NPPF’s golden thread for sustainable development. 1.3 Further, there are additional significant problems with the Council seeking to re-base its plan to 2016, relating to the impact on the HMA as a whole. These reasons are set out in more detail in Section 4.0 of the Technical Annex at Appendix 2 attached to this Matters Statement. In summary, the most recent HMA-wide assessment of housing needs (including drawing on employment growth estimates) is that set out in the Cambridgeshire SHMA. Because East Cambridgeshire has significantly under-delivered against its housing requirement in the 2011-16 period, but has seen quite high job growth, it is inevitable that there has been a significant change in commuting patterns which will have had knock-on impacts in the rest of the HMA Pg 1/10 Lichfields.uk 15890227v1 (i.e. areas are now needing to provide housing for workers commuting into East Cambridgeshire, or are not receiving in-commuters on the same basis as in 2011). An attempt by East Cambridgeshire to ‘bake-in’ these new commuting assumptions will impact on the rest of the HMA, but in a way that the Council cannot demonstrate. On this basis, a consistent updated employment-led scenario can only be re-based if it is done so for the entire HMA. This has not been the case, and the Council’s position on employment and housing cannot be demonstrated to be integrated as required by para 158. Nor can it be shown that there is a clear understanding of housing needs across the HMA, as required by para 159. This is a very significant failing. 2.0 Employment 21. Is the objectively assessed need for economic development based on an appropriately defined functional economic market area? 2.1 N/A 22. Is the need for 6,000 jobs consistent with the evidence? In particular, why is there such a difference between the East of England Forecast Model (EEFM) of 2014 and 2016 (7,100 jobs and 4,820 jobs respectively)? How do past trends inform the figure of 6,000 new jobs within the submitted Local Plan? How has the potential to reduce the level of out commuting been taken into account in calculating the 44.4 ha ‘need’ for employment land within the district? 2.2 The Council’s evidence (PE06) shows that over the 2014-36 period its concluded OAN would support the level of job growth set out the EEFM 2016 of 4,820. However: 1 The Council has not demonstrated that its chosen figure of 6,000 can be supported by the concluded OAN in PE06, and thus the 6,000 job figure is not consistent with the evidence; 2 In any case, the proposed housing need figure in the plan is not based on this time period because of a late-in-the-day, somewhat curious, and utterly mistaken change to apply the ‘standard methodology’ with a 2016 based date. This means any under-delivery of housing need associated with employment growth between 2014 and 2016 is effectively ‘wiped clean’; 3 For the reasons set out in Section 4.0 of the Technical Annex, the Council’s evidence base is infected with the more fundamental flaw that (due to significant housing under-delivery since 2011) it is inconsistent with the most recent HMA-wide evidence. The under-delivery of housing combined with job growth in the District means that there has been a significant change in commuting patterns since 2011. If East Cambridgeshire effectively ‘wipes the slate clean’ and plans based on commuting in 2014 or 2016, it is planning for housing based on commuting at those times, not in 2011 (which is the assumption adopted in the Cambridgeshire SHMA). Without producing a consistent assessment of employment and housing needs from an agreed based date with the rest of the HMA, East Cambridgeshire cannot demonstrate that its housing figure will not have a knock-on effect in the rest of HMA, and thus the Council does not have a “clear understanding” of needs within the HMA as required by the NPPF para 159 and is not able to show that its strategies are integrated (NPPF para 158). Pg 2/10 Lichfields.uk 15890227v1 23. Is the assumption that employment land would be lost to other uses, over the plan period, @0.98 ha per annum justified? Is it correct that the requirement for employment land to cater for both job creation, and the loss of existing employment land to other uses, is for around 66 ha of employment land allocations? 2.3 N/A 3.0 Housing: 24. Is the Council’s use of the standard methodology to determine local housing need, referred to within the consultation draft of the National Planning Policy Framework, justified, positively prepared, effective, consistent with national policy, and an appropriate alternative methodology to that set out within the Planning Practice Guidance? 3.1 No. Gladman considers that the Council’s chosen approach to applying the standard methodology to determine housing need fails all four of the tests of soundness. 3.2 Examination Document PS.EVR2 (Policy LP2) states at para 2.1 that: “The earlier stages of plan preparation relied on the ‘old’ local method of calculating an ‘objectively assessed need’ (OAN) for housing, rather than the new, national standard ‘Local Housing Need’ (LHN) method.” 3.3 The Council’s statement that OAN is an ‘old’ method no longer to be applied but replaced by the ‘new’ standard method is curious and factually inaccurate. At the time of writing, the draft Framework (which contains reference to the standard methodology) and a draft of the suggested text for the PPG on the standard methodology have both just closed for consultation. Whilst the Government has indicated its intentions to implement the new standard methodology upon adoption of the revised Framework, it remains the fact that at the time of this EIP it will not be adopted national policy. Even if it were the case that the draft NPPF was given weight, para 209 of the draft Framework sets out clear transitional arrangements for the use of the standardised methodology: “The policies in the previous Framework will apply for the purpose of examining plans, where those plans are submitted on or before [ ] [this will be the date which is six months after the date of the final Framework’s publication]. In these cases the examination will take no account of the new Framework.” (emphasis added) 3.4 On the basis of these proposed transitional arrangements and given that this plan is at examination, the draft Framework indicates that it should take no account of the new Framework, including the use of the standard methodology. 3.5 Setting aside the timing of the introduction of the standard methodology, the Housing White Paper first referenced the Government’s intention to introduce a standard methodology with a purpose to address issues with slow plan progress and in areas where objectively assessed needs were not being addressed because authorities were “coming up with their own methodology”. Nowhere in the Housing White Paper or in the draft NPPF does Government suggest that the purposes of implementing such a methodology is to render housing requirements in areas with post-NPPF up-to-date plans (as is the case in East Cambridgeshire) out-of-date as soon as the final revised Framework is published. There is nothing to suggest that Government believes Pg 3/10 Lichfields.uk 15890227v1 current requirements based on OAN are inherently wrong and/or that the approach of the current PPG guidance on OAN – properly implemented - should no longer apply by virtue of the fact that it is looking to adopt a standard methodology.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • East Cambridgeshire Objectively Assessed Housing Need October 2016
    East Cambridgeshire Objectively Assessed Housing Need October 2016 Establishing future need for housing A report by Cambridgeshire County Council Research Group to support East Cambridgeshire District Council in objectively assessing and evidencing development needs for housing, both market and affordable. Executive Summary 1. “The primary purpose of identifying need is to identify the future quantity of housing needed, including a breakdown by type, tenure and size.” Source: Planning Practice Guidance Reference ID: 2a-002-20140306 2. The purpose of this report is to identify the future quantity of housing needed, from 2014 to 2036. 3. The overall housing figure that has been identified is 12,900 dwellings (586 dwellings per annum). 4. This housing figure results from applying an upward adjustment to the starting point estimate of overall housing need over the 2014 to 2036 period, to bring the population and households in 2036 to the levels suggested by the official 2012-based projections. 5. The purpose of this report is also to consider the total need for affordable housing in the context of the overall housing figure. 6. The total need for affordable housing that has been calculated is 2,854 houses for 2014-2036. 7. Table 1 provides a summary of the identified change in population, jobs and dwellings numbers for the period 2014 to 2036. Table 1: Identified population, jobs and dwellings change from 2014 to 2036 for East Cambridgeshire District Population Jobs Dwellings Ratio of new jobs to new dwellings East Cambridgeshire 24,400 6,900 12,900 0.5 8. The overall housing figure that has been identified is 4% higher than the CLG 2012 estimate of 12,440 dwellings (12,050 households) and 33% higher than the CLG 2014 estimate of 9,730 dwellings (9,420 households).
    [Show full text]
  • Help to Heat Local Authority Flexible Eligibility Statement of Intent
    APPENDIX 2 Energy Company Obligation: Help to Heat Local Authority Flexible Eligibility Statement of Intent On behalf of Action on Energy Cambridgeshire including: Cambridge City Council, East Cambridgeshire District Council, Fenland District Council, Huntingdonshire District Council and South Cambridgeshire District Council. Date of publication: **TBC** Version: 1.4 URL: [insert webpage SOI has been published on] 1) Introduction 1.1. Fuel poverty in England is measured using the Low Income High Costs (LIHC) indicator, which considers a household to be fuel poor if: they have required fuel costs that are above average (the national median level); and were they to spend that amount, they would be left with a residual income below the official poverty line.1 1.2. Nationally the 2015 figures for England estimate that 2.5 million households suffer from fuel poverty, 11% the total.2 Living in a cold home doubles the risk of respiratory problems in children; increases the risk of minor illnesses; exacerbates existing conditions such as arthritis and is associated with 3 times the level of excess winter deaths as the warmest homes.3 1.3. Action on Energy Cambridgeshire is a collective of the city and district councils that work together for mutual benefit in addressing fuel poverty. We welcome the introduction of Flexible Eligibility as part of the Energy Company Obligation (ECO) as it will allow us to support additional vulnerable households under broader criteria. 1.4. Fuel Poverty is a serious concern in our county and affects over 19,000 households4 contributing to more than 800 Excess Winter Deaths on average each year.5 Although our collective actions helped reduce fuel poverty across the county by an estimated 1468 households from 2013-2015 however there is still more to be done.
    [Show full text]
  • Final Recommendations - Eastern Region
    Final recommendations - Eastern region Contents 1. Initial proposals overview p1 6. Sub-region 1: Bedfordshire p10, recommendations p11 2. Number of representations received p3 7. Sub-region 2: Cambridgeshire, Hertfordshire and Norfolk Cambridgeshire p12, recommendations p13 Hertfordshire p14, recommendations p15 Norfolk p15, recommendations p16 3. Campaigns p4 8. Sub-region 3: Essex p17, recommendations p18 4. Major issues p5 9. Sub-region 4: Suffolk p19, recommendations p20 5. Final proposals recommendations p7 Appendix A Initial/revised proposals overview 1. The Eastern region was allocated 57 constituencies under the initial and revised proposals, a reduction of one from the existing allocation. In formulating the initial and revised proposals the Commission decided to construct constituencies using the following sub-regions: Table 1A - Constituency allocation Sub-region Existing allocation Allocation under initial Allocation under revised proposals proposals Bedfordshire 6 6 6 Cambridgeshire, 27 27 27 Hertfordshire and Norfolk Essex 18 17 17 Suffolk 7 7 7 2. Under the initial proposals six of the existing 58 constituencies were completely unchanged. The revised proposals continued to retain six of the existing constituencies unchanged. Under both sets of proposals it was proposed to have two constituencies that crossed county boundaries - one between Cambridgeshire and Norfolk, and one between Cambridgeshire and Hertfordshire. In Suffolk, Bedfordshire and Essex it was possible to allocate a whole number of constituencies to each county. 1 3. In response to the consultation on the initial proposals and secondary consultation the Commission received over 2,000 representations regarding the Eastern region. These representations commented on most parts of the region, with the main issues being: ● The proposed constituency of North East Hertfordshire.
    [Show full text]
  • Cambridge: Closing the Gap
    Cambridge: Closing the Gap An independent report prepared by Centre for Cities on Cambridge’s economy presented to Cambridge City Council, Cambridgeshire County Council, Cambridgeshire Horizons, the Greater Cambridge Partnership and the East of England Development Agency March 2009 Lena Tochtermann Introduction Cambridge is a Partner City in the Centre for Cities research programme ‘Unlocking City Potential and Sustaining City Growth’. The programme works closely with a small group of cities to inform economic development strategies and improve economic performance. This report looks at how housing, transport and the economy interact and sets out policy analysis and recommendations in response to three principal questions: • What is the impact of Cambridge’s growth on the wider economy? • How can transport be used to support sustainable economic growth in Cambridge? • How can housing policy in Cambridge help to overcome affordability challenges and support sustainable economic growth? Cambridge’s Sectoral profile (2007) Cambridge Great Britain Manufacturing Manufacturing Other services 1.6% 4.5% Other services 2.3% 10.6% Construction 1.8% Construction 4.9% Wholesale activities 2.1% Wholesale activities 4.2% Retail & leisure Public administration, Public administration, 18.5% education & health education & health 43.8% 26.9% Retail & leisure 22.1% Transport & communication 3.1% Agriculture & energy 0.3% Transport & communication 5.9% Research, architecture & Financial & Related office services Agriculture & energy Business Services 6.1% 1.6% Research, architecture & Financial & Related 15.7% office services Business Services 8.4% 15.6% Source: Nomis, Annual Business Inquiry (2009) for 2007 data Key recommendations Cambridge is a key economic driver for the wider region and an asset for the UK as a whole, attracting investment in knowledge intensive industries that otherwise might not have come to the UK at all.
    [Show full text]
  • An Overview of Ely
    1 Contents About this document 4 Introduction 5 A vision for Ely 6 Area of focus 1: Station gateway 16 Area of focus 2: City Centre 20 Area of focus 3: Connectivity 25 Implementation Plan 29 3 About this document This document has been commissioned by the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority (CPCA), working in partnership with East Cambridgeshire District Council. This Market Town Plan is a series of living documents, owned and updated by local partners including the District Council and the Combined Authority. The devolution deal which created the combined authority recognises the important role of market town economies in growing the wider Cambridgeshire and Peterborough economy. A masterplan for each of the eleven market towns across the region provides the opportunity to look at the unique features of each town, and offers deliverables which will benefit the immediate and wider economy. This Market Town Plan for Ely endorses Mayor James Palmer’s target for the combined authority region to double its Gross Value Added (GVA) over the next twenty-five years. To achieve this, market town economies must ‘do their bit’ – the interventions outlined in this document have been selected for the purpose of achieving this. We don’t expect everything in this document to be funded immediately. There are some quick wins where an injection of funding can get things moving. For other projects, we will need to spend time developing detailed plans and compelling investment cases before we can begin to leverage in funding. While the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority (CPCA) has funded this report, and is keen to invest in our city, we know we will need to build a coalition of supporters, including central government, to get some of the schemes detailed here delivered.
    [Show full text]
  • East Cambridgeshire
    EAST CAMBRIDGESHIRE DISTRICT COUNCIL THE GRANGE, NUTHOLT LANE, ELY, CAMBRIDGESHIRE CB7 4EE Telephone: Ely (01353) 665555 DX41001 ELY Fax: (01353) 665240 www.eastcambs.gov.uk Further to your information request FOI/EIR 20/21-056 please find your question and our response below. Request: Please provide copies of all communication between councillors and/or officers of East Cambridgeshire District Council, and to or from councillors and/or officers of East Cambridgeshire District Council and the Mayor of Cambridgeshire & Peterborough and/or members and/or officers of the Cambridgeshire & Peterborough Combined Authority relating to the use, occupation, ownership, or leasing of the current or former Citizens Advice office in Market Street Ely. Response: No information is held. The office was leased to Cambridgeshire Rural Advice Service until the Council received a notice to end the lease in March 2020. It was updated to Council on 21 May 2020 that Officers have instructed a valuation in preparation for marketing 70 Market Street, Ely in due course. This concludes your request FOI/EIR 20/21-056 If information has been refused please treat this as a Refusal Notice for the purposes of the Act. If you disagree with our decision or are otherwise unhappy with how we have dealt with your request in the first instance you may approach [email protected] and request a review. A request for review must be made in no more than 40 working days from the date of your this email. Should you remain dissatisfied with the outcome you have a right under s50 of the Freedom of Information Act to appeal against the decision by contacting the Information Commissioner, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow SK9 5AF.
    [Show full text]
  • LHNA Sept 2020 (PDF 8.52Mb)
    South West Hertfordshire Local Housing Needs Assessment On behalf of Dacorum, Hertsmere, St. Albans, Three Rivers and Watford Councils September 2020 Prepared by GL Hearn 65 Gresham Street London EC2V 7NQ T +44 (0)20 7851 4900 glhearn.com South West Hertfordshire Local Housing Needs Assessment, September 2020 Contents Section Page EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS 4 1 INTRODUCTION 14 2 DEMOGRAPHIC GROWTH AND HOUSING NEED 22 3 ECONOMIC LED HOUSING NEED 37 4 MARKET SIGNALS 48 5 AFFORDABLE HOUSING NEED 69 6 HOUSING MIX 116 7 HOUSING NEEDS OF OLDER AND DISABLED PERSONS 142 8 HOUSING NEEDS OF DIFFERENT GROUPS 169 9 HOUSING DELIVERY 185 Appendices APPENDIX A: DEMOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS 193 APPENDIX B: COST AND AFFORDABILITY ANALYSIS BY LOCAL AUTHORITY 211 APPENDIX C: CHANGE IN HOUSEHOLD TYPES AT A LOCAL AUTHORITY LEVEL 214 APPENDIX D: AVERAGE BEDROOM BY AGE AND TENURE 217 APPENDIX E: CHANGE IN HOUSEHOLDS BY AGE OF HOUSEHOLD REFERENCE PERSONS FOR EACH LOCAL AUTHORITIES 220 APPENDIX F: OLDER PERSONS’ ACCOMMODATION – RECENT PLANNING DECISIONS 223 GL Hearn Page 2 of 227 J:\Planning\Job Files\J039924 - South West Herts - SHMA Update\Report\September 2020 LHNA Clean V3.docx South West Hertfordshire Local Housing Needs Assessment, September 2020 Quality Standards Control The signatories below verify that this document has been prepared in accordance with our quality control requirements. These procedures do not affect the content and views expressed by the originator. This document must only be treated as a draft unless it is has been signed by the Originators and approved by a Business or Associate Director. DATE ORIGINATORS APPROVED August 2020 Nena Pavlidou Paul McColgan Senior Planner Director Limitations This document has been prepared for the stated objective and should not be used for any other purpose without the prior written authority of GL Hearn; we accept no responsibility or liability for the consequences of this document being used for a purpose other than for which it was commissioned.
    [Show full text]
  • APPENDIX 2 Schedule of Representation Responses and Main Issues in Consultation Document Order
    APPENDIX 2 Schedule of Representation Responses and Main Issues in Consultation Document Order Paragraph Number General Comment ID CILPDCS64 Consultee Name and Housebuilders Consortium Consultee ID 647103 Organisation Agent Name and Organisation Mr Tom Fraser Agent ID 646541 Savills L & P Comments There are a number of matters which need to be addressed in the Draft Charging Schedule, notably Greater clarity and transparency is needed in regard to how the list of infrastructure has been arrived at, how the costs have been calculated and the potential sources of funding; Review of the infrastructure list to ensure there is no double charging and that all elements included comply with the legal definition of infrastructure; Outline the necessary supporting documentation to ensure the effective implementation and operation of CIL (for example policy on relief and instalments). Outline a draft Regulation 123 List for Infrastructure which appropriately balances the infrastructure needed to support development (for example greater funding toward highways and community measures directly associated with planned growth). Provide clarity on whether administration costs have been factored into the CIL rate and whether this is in the spirit of the Regulations and CLG guidance. These matters would help nurture confidence with the implementation of CIL. In addition, it is strongly recommended that in pursuing CIL the Borough Council: Permits relief (which HBC has acknowledged it will do) Re-runs the viability models with our assumptions Outlines a
    [Show full text]
  • An Independence from Europebritish N Ational Party Christian Peoples Alliance Conservative Party English D Emocrats Green Party
    An Independence from EuropeBritish National Party Christian Peoples Alliance Conservative Party English Democrats Green Party Labour Party Liberal Democrats NO2EU UK Independence Party (UKIP)Total Babergh district 359 123 150 8,235 294 2,698 3,465 1,757 60 9,217 26,358 Basildon Borough Council 877 564 320 10,202 628 2,032 7,301 1,233 147 18,926 42,230 Bedford Borough Council 690 311 474 11,448 323 2,836 9,603 3,266 151 11,470 40,572 Braintree District Council 496 307 210 11,055 585 3,108 5,506 1,458 79 14,641 37,445 Breckland District Council 525 238 327 9,859 285 2,741 4,420 1,211 98 14,393 34,097 Brentwood Borough 369 194 191 7,469 295 1,439 2,349 1,883 37 8,521 22,747 Council Broadland District 447 186 231 10,313 244 3,415 5,288 2,142 78 12,900 35,244 Council Broxbourne Borough 550 273 143 7,209 281 972 3,353 598 77 9,489 22,945 Council Cambridge City Council 315 122 296 5,883 143 7,381 10,356 7,866 110 4,585 37,057 Castle Point Borough 743 346 156 6,159 413 1,151 2,994 439 61 11,391 23,853 Council Central Bedfordshire 1,140 507 487 20,967 657 5,019 9,623 3,534 198 24,509 66,641 Chelmsford City Council 537 234 279 13,714 457 3,162 5,285 3,790 89 16,065 43,612 Colchester Borough 695 294 317 12,680 542 4,543 6,715 5,049 115 14,489 45,439 Council Dacorum Borough 469 247 242 11,688 306 3,222 5,849 2,977 109 11,102 36,211 East Cambridgeshire 307 113 182 6,692 161 2,106 2,552 2,303 47 6,553 21,016 District Council East Hertfordshire 570 255 215 13,343 281 3,253 5,115 2,414 99 11,806 37,351 District Council An Independence from EuropeBritish
    [Show full text]
  • Interim Report May 2018
    Interim Report May 2018 www.cpier.org.uk Foreword FROM THE CHAIR OF THE REVIEW, DAME KATE BARKER The Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Independent Economic Review (CPIER) is pleased to present the interim report, which has been led by the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Independent Economic Commission (CPIEC). It is co-funded by the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority, the Business Board of the Combined Authority, and Cambridge Ahead. This is of course the Commission’s report. The views expressed have been developed as independent – as our funders asked us to do. The Commission is now roughly at the half way stage in the review. We have gathered a great deal of evidence. Much of the evidence we have is data on the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough economy. Most of what we have now is from published sources, and we have commissioned a range of new research too. Some of that is available to us now and informs this report. Much of the research is still underway and will be reflected in the final report. At this stage, we have not set out a wholly definitive analysis of where the economy of the area is heading and what should be done about it. This is more our view of where the economy is today and how it got there, an important starting point for the review. While the area the review has responsibility for is defined by its administrative geography, we are primarily concerned with the economics of the area, and we therefore refrain from artificially simplifying, or forcing together, the economic geography.
    [Show full text]
  • London Commuter Belt (West) SHMA Report of Study Findings April 2010
    London Commuter Belt (West) Strategic Housing Market Assessment 2008 Report of Study Findings April 2010 London Commuter Belt (West) Strategic Housing Market Assessment 2008 Opinion Research Services The Strand, Swansea SA1 1AF Jonathan Lee Nigel Moore · Catherine Nock · Hugo Marchant · Chris Broughton enquiries 01792 535300 · [email protected] · www.ors.org.uk © Copyright December 2009 Hertfordshire County Council County Hall, Hertford SG13 8DN Russell Monck (Forward Planning) [email protected] enquiries 01992 555234 Dacorum Borough Council Civic Centre, Marlowes, Hemel Hempstead, HP1 1HH David Pickering (Housing Enabling Officer) [email protected] enquiries 01442 867814 or Nathalie Bateman (Planning Officer) [email protected] enquiries 01442 228526 or 01442 228592 Hertsmere Borough Council Civic Offices, Elstree Way, Borehamwood, WD6 1WA Tina Nyamaah (Affordable Housing Co-ordinator) [email protected] Or Kim Harwood Housing Need and Strategy Manager Tel: 020 8207 2277 Ext 2501 [email protected] enquiries 020 8207 2277 ext 3315 or Andre Sestini (Senior Planning Officer) [email protected] enquiries: 020 8207 7509 St Albans City and District Council Civic Centre, St Peters Street, St Albans, AL1 3JE David Reavill (Development Officer) [email protected] or Linda Middleton (Housing Strategy Manager) [email protected] enquiries 01727 819382 or 01727 819401 Three Rivers District Council Three Rivers House, Northway, Rickmansworth, WD3 1RL Nyack Semelo-Shaw
    [Show full text]
  • Living and Working in the East of England
    Health Education East of England Living and working in the east of England: A guide to our Workforce Recruitment Team Partnership areas T: 0844 894 0179 E:[email protected] @eoeLETB www.eoe.hee.nhs.uk Bordering London, Suffolk, Cambridgeshire, Shopping Hertfordshire, and the North Sea, the county of Essex offers a great experience to live and study in Contents the east of England. London is a short journey ESSEX away, but if you want to get away from the city lights, you can visit one of the many rural villages in Essex ..................................................3 the region or see some of the 350 miles of Norfolk and Suffolk ............................5 coastline; from the famous Southend Pier (the longest pleasure in the world) to the quieter Frinton Cambridgeshire and Peterborough ....7 and Mersea Island in the North of the County. Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire ........11 Where we are ..................................15 Essex is famed for its shopping, and has a number of different locations including the enormous Lakeside shopping centre a. Colchester and Chelmsford also offer a range of different shops and there are plans for further What is Health Education development in Chelmsford. East of England? Stately Homes and Castles Health Education East of England (HEEoE) is the Local Education and Training Board that covers With its Victorian days and the terrifying Bedfordshire, Hertfordshire, Cambridgeshire and Halloween Ghost Walk, Audley End is a mansion Peterborough, Norfolk, Suffolk and Essex. In April with a difference, and one of England's finest 2013 HEEoE took over responsibility for the country houses. Alternatively, if you want to brush East of England quality of education, training and development in up on your history you can visit on of Essex's the east of England, previously managed by the castles in Hedingham, Colchester and Hadleigh.
    [Show full text]