DOCSLIB.ORG

Review Into the Best Value Delivery of the Environmental Health out of Hours Service for Sevenoaks District Council [And Dartford Borough Council]

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Review Into the Best Value Delivery of the Environmental Health out of Hours Service for Sevenoaks District Council [And Dartford Borough Council] REVIEW INTO THE BEST VALUE DELIVERY OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH OUT OF HOURS SERVICE FOR SEVENOAKS DISTRICT COUNCIL [AND DARTFORD BOROUGH COUNCIL] Cabinet - 19 April 2018 Report of the: Chief Officer Environmental & Operational Services Status: For recommendation to Cabinet Also considered by: Direct and Trading Advisory Committee - 13 March 2018 Key Decision: Yes Executive Summary: The shared service Environmental Health team currently provides an Out of Hours (OOH) Service to deal with complaints from residents within the Sevenoaks and Dartford districts. This service currently operates everyday throughout the year between 17:00 and 22:00 Monday to Thursday, 17:00 to 00:00 Friday, 08:00 to 00:00 Saturday and 08:00 to 22:00 Sunday. Demand for the service is shown to vary significantly throughout the year and by day of the week. Many of the calls received are not urgent and do not require immediate action. These can be managed the next working day during office hours in accordance with agreed performance indicators. In the past 18 months, experienced officers have left the OOH Service, and there is now a serious issue with fully staffing the Service in its existing format. This report recommends that the OOH service targets Environmental Health Officer resource at times of peak demand whilst simultaneously empowering the CCTV team to respond, record and provide advice to the majority of ‘one off’ complaints received by the service. The existing OOH provision for serious or emergency public health complaints will be extended via a year round cascade call system. This report supports the Key Aim of Safe Communities and Green Environment Portfolio Holder Cllr. Matthew Dickins Contact Officers Annie Sargent Ext.3085 / Nick Chapman. Ext 3160 Recommendation to Direct and Trading Advisory Committee To consider and recommend to Cabinet that the changes to the Out of Hours service proposed within the conclusion to this report are agreed. Recommendation to Cabinet That Cabinet agree to the recommended changes to the Out of Hours Service proposed within the conclusion to this report. Reason for recommendation: To ensure the Environmental Health Out of Hours service is targeted to allow resources to be available at times of peak demand. Introduction and Background 1 The Environmental Health Partnership currently operates an Out of Hours (OOH) Service across both Sevenoaks and Dartford districts. During operational hours, members of the public can contact a duty Environmental Protection Officer in respect of environmental complaints including noise, odour and smoke etc. 2 The duty officer will provide advice as required and where appropriate will undertake site inspections and take action to resolve a complainant’s concerns. Calls received rarely constitute a significant public health matter or an emergency situation which requires immediate attention. 3 Currently the OOH service operates Monday to Thursday 17:00 to 22:00, Friday 17:00 to 00:00, Saturday 08:00 to 00:00 and Sunday 08:00 to 22:00. The service is extended to cover public holidays (including staff statutory days) with the exception of Christmas Day and Boxing Day when a “telephone response” service is provided. 4 Calls received after 22:00 or 00:00 and before office opening hours are recorded and passed to the Environmental Health Team the next working day. 5 For each week of the year, the OOH Service is covered by one officer from within the Environmental Health team. Officers volunteer for these duties and they are carried out in addition to the standard 37 hour working week. This can equate to a working week of 92hrs+ when on OOH duty. 6 The OOH duty officer is provided with details of residents who have called the OOH service and is expected to call them back within 1 hour. 7 Where a call is received regarding a complaint already being investigated by the Environmental Health team, or is subject to enforcement action, or is deemed to present either a significant public health risk or nuisance the OOH duty officer is expected to visit the address to obtain evidence and take appropriate enforcement action. 8 Currently, OOH duty officers are expected to take time off in ‘lieu’ (TOIL) for these visits during their standard working week. This time is taken during normal office hours and impacts upon the team’s ability to undertake day to day statutory duties. Staffing Issues 9 Historically, 6 officers from within the Environmental Health team have participated in the service, each undertaking 9 separate shifts of 7 days (Monday to Sunday) throughout the calendar year on a 6 week rota. However, since April 2017, 4 of these officers have left the OOH service. 10 This has resulted in 23 vacant shifts/ weeks in 2017/2018 (34 for 2018/2019) which have had to be filled by members of the Environmental Health team on an ad hoc basis. 11 Only appropriately trained and experienced officers can cover the OOH service. 12 It has become increasingly difficult to staff the service with volunteers and as a consequence, the burden for covering the service has increasingly fallen to two of the original officers. There are concerns that this will impact on these officers’ wellbeing. It is therefore not considered sustainable to continue to operate the service in this way. 13 The majority of officers within the Environmental Health Team do not wish to voluntarily participate in the OOH service in its current format. Officers have stated that they are concerned about the impact that covering the service has upon their health, home life and caring responsibilities. Health & safety risks and concerns associated with lone working late at night in remote areas have also been raised. (Appendix A ) 14 It is a requirement within the contract of all officers of the Environmental Health team to take part in the OOH service as required. Many officers are not however qualified or experienced to carry out the service (officers within the Commercial team and the Scientific Officer) and would require specialist training to participate. (See Appendix B) 15 Consideration would need to be given as to how such a requirement would fit with those who are primary carers or currently work part time. This is the reason why the scheme currently relies on volunteers. Current Costs of Service 16 Currently there is a salary cost to operating the OOH service of £14,584.96 split between Dartford and Sevenoaks Councils. 17 Officers are not paid overtime and are instead expected to claim TOIL for any hours they work investigating or undertaking enforcement OOH. This includes any travel time to and from their home. Appendix C 18 Owing to the nature of the area covered by Dartford and Sevenoaks most officers live outside of the district and consequently travel time is a significant contributor to these costs. 19 Total cost to Dartford and Sevenoaks for providing the OOH service is therefore estimated in real terms to be in excess of £22,000 Calls received by Service 20 Between April 2014 and March 2017 the OOH Service received 908 calls (average of 303 per year) excluding stray dog calls. 21 60% of calls received by the OOH Service relate to Dartford, 40% of calls relate to Sevenoaks. 22 The majority of calls (70%) are received between May and October each year. The majority of calls are received by the service Friday to Sunday (74%). The majority of calls are received between 18:00 and 00:00 (70%). - Appendix D. 23 81% of calls received by the OOH service are in respect of noise. The majority of these are in respect of amplified music/ behaviour noise from neighbouring domestic properties. 24 Approximately 21% of calls result in Officers undertaking an OOH visit. (18% of calls in 2016/2017 and 25% in 2017/2018). 25 The OOH Service currently receives a large number of new/ 1st time/ one off event type complaints. This type of call is unlikely to result in action being taken OOH and is commonly dealt with through the provision of advice. This type of call could reasonably be responded to within normal office hours (in accordance with agreed Performance Indicators). 26 Officers would typically undertake a visit in response to an OOH complaint where it is considered that they can either obtain evidence to support legal action (either immediate or during working hours) or make a difference to the customer. Types of call which commonly result in an OOH visit include: a. Ongoing noise problems which are currently under investigation by the EP Team b. Ongoing/ Sounding alarm (vehicle or property) c. Drainage problems resulting in a sewage overflow (not within the remit of the statutory undertaker) d. Complaints about licensed premises where it is alleged there is a significant noise problem. e. Noise from large construction sites (such as those operated by a major contractor) where noise is outside of District Council ‘recommended hours’ 27 The OOH duty officers work alone. They must therefore consider the health and safety implications of lone working and must not put themselves at risk. This can limit the effectiveness of the OOH service to resolve complaints to the satisfaction of residents. The service is unable to approach and stop/ reduce the noise from ‘one off’ parties for this reason. 28 Kent Police do not have the resource to provide support to Local Authorities undertaking OOH visits. Legal Basis for the Out of Hours Service 29 The Environmental Protection Act 1990 places a duty upon every local authority to take reasonably practicable steps to investigate a complaint. The method for discharging this duty is not however dictated by statute and the Council has no legal duty to maintain an OOH service.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Progress Summary
    CLIMATE EMERGENCY PROGRESS CHECKLIST - 10 December 2019 NB. This is work in progress! We have almost certainly missed some actions. Please contact [email protected] with any news or updates. County/Authority Council Status County/Authority Council Status Brighton & Hove BRIGHTON & HOVE CITY COUNCIL DECLARED Dec 2018 KENT COUNTY COUNCIL Motion Passed May 2019 WEST SUSSEX COUNTY COUNCIL Motion Passed - April 2019 Ashford Borough Council Motion Passed July 2019 Adur Borough Council DECLARED July 2019 Canterbury City Council DECLARED July 2019 Arun District Council DECLARED Nov 2019 Dartford Borough Council DECLARED Oct 2019 Chichester City Council DECLARED June 2019 Dover District Council Campaign in progress West Sussex Chichester District Council DECLARED July 2019 Folkestone and Hythe District Council DECLARED July 2019 Crawley Borough Council DECLARED July 2019 Gravesham Borough Council DECLARED June 2019 Kent Horsham District Council Motion Passed - June 2019 Maidstone Borough Council DECLARED April 2019 Mid Sussex District Council Motion Passed - June 2019 Medway Council DECLARED April 2019 Worthing Borough Council DECLARED July 2019 Sevenoaks District Council Motion Passed - Nov 2019 EAST SUSSEX COUNTY COUNCIL DECLARED Oct 2019 Swale Borough Council DECLARED June 2019 Eastbourne Borough Council DECLARED July 2019 Thanet District Council DECLARED July 2019 Hastings Borough Council DECLARED Dec 2018 Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council Motion Passed July 2019 East Sussex Lewes District Council DECLARED July 2019 Tunbridge
    [Show full text]
  • Tourism and Culture Strategy Development Update Report To
    Subject: Tourism and Culture Strategy Development Update Report to: ELT – Monday 5th November 2018 Economic Development Committee – Monday 19th November 2018 Report by: Kate Watts – Strategic Director Paula Boyce – Head of IT Marketing and Communications This report provides committee Members with an update of progress on the development a new Tourism and Culture Strategy for the Borough and in doing so, it asks Members to resolve to a number of additional developmental steps being taken with an amended timeline for the completion of the work to April 2019. To undertake these additional developmental steps Members are asked to allocate £20,000 from the Council’s special projects reserve funding. 1. BACKGROUND 1.1 On Monday 16th July 2018 Members of Economic Development Committee resolved to create a new Tourism and Culture Strategy for Great Yarmouth. 1.2 Since the Council’s Economic Development Committee resolved to develop the new Tourism and Culture Strategy, a number of activities have taken place. This report updates Members with progress so far and outlines to Members the next steps in creating what has been recognised by our stakeholders as an important document for the Borough. 2. PROGRESS SO FAR 2.1 As part of the development work for this strategy, officers and Members from the Council’s Economic Development Committee undertook a study tour in October visiting cultural attractions in both Hastings and Margate. In doing so, the group met with officers, Members and private sector partners in both Thanet District Council and Hastings Borough Council area, learning about the role of each Council in terms of catalysts for investment to add value to and improve the local tourism and cultural offer in each area.
    [Show full text]
  • Streets for All South East
    Streets for All South East Consultation draft copy Summary In 2017 Historic England published an updated national edition of Streets for All, a practical guide for anyone involved in planning and implementing highways and other public realm works in sensitive historic locations. It shows how improvements can be made to public spaces without harming their valued character, including specific recommendations for works to surfaces, street furniture, new equipment, traffic management infrastructure and environmental improvements. This supplementary document summarises the key messages of Streets for All in the context of the South East. It begins by explaining how historic character adds value to the region’s contemporary public realm before summarising some of the priorities and opportunities for further improvements to the South East’s streetscape. This guidance has been prepared by Martin Small, Historic Places Advisor in the South East, and Rowan Whimster. First published by English Heritage 20Ǔǘ. This edition published by Historic England 2017. All images © Historic England unless otherwise stated. Please refer to this document as: Historic England 2017 Streets for All: South East Swindon. Historic England. HistoricEngland.org.uk/advice/caring-for-heritage/streets-for-all/ Front cover: Guildford, Surrey Granite setts have been a defining feature of Guildford’s steeply sloping High Street for 150 years. After years of unsatisfactory patched repairs, Surrey County Council recently took the bold decision to relay the 115,000 original setts using modern grouting products that reduce the trip hazards and maintain a consistent contour across the road, thus making it much easier for pedestrians to walk on. © Eilís Byrne The public realm From Kent to Oxfordshire, the South East of on the safety of children and on accessibility for England contains a wealth of historic cities, towns everyone.
    [Show full text]
  • THE COASTAL COMMUNITIES of SOUTH EAST ENGLAND Recommendations to the South East
    THE COASTAL COMMUNITIES OF SOUTH EAST ENGLAND Recommendations to the South East LEP Prof Steve Fothergill Centre for Regional Economic and Social Research Sheffield Hallam University Final report December 2012 1 Summary This report considers the policy implications arising from a statistical review of the South East’s coastal communities, completed in April 2012. It also builds on discussions involving coastal local authorities, private sector representatives and other local partners. The statistical review identified the South East’s coastal communities, which have a combined population of one million or around a quarter of the LEP total, as on average an area of social and economic disadvantage, well adrift of LEP averages and sometimes behind national averages as well. The review also flagged up important differences between places along the coast and put forward a six-fold classification of areas that has won wide support. The present report makes ten recommendations: 1. The South East LEP needs to be ‘spatially aware’. The big internal differences within the LEP area, and in particular the distinctive needs of the coastal strip, need to inform the full range of LEP activities. 2. Strategic plans and priorities should give special attention to the coastal strip. This includes in the allocation of resources. 3. Transport links to parts of the coast need improvement. Accessibility remains an important constraint in a number of local areas. 4. The seaside tourist industry should be treated as one of the drivers of economic growth. Tourism along the coast continues to employ as many people as manufacturing, and there are opportunities for growth.
    [Show full text]
  • Barco De Vapor & Ors V Thanet District Council
    Barco de Vapor v Thanet DC Neutral Citation Number: [2014] EWHC 490 (Ch) Case No: I/A 5 OF 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CHANCERY DIVISION Rolls Building 7 Rolls Buildings Fetter Lane London EC4A 1NL Date: 27/02/2014 Before : MR JUSTICE BIRSS - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Between : (1) BARCO DE VAPOR B.V. (2) ONDERWATER AGNEAUX B.V (3) JOHANNES QUIRINIUS WOUTERIUS MARIA ONDERWATER (Trading as JOINT CARRIER) Claimants - and - THANET DISTRICT COUNCIL Defendant - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Andrew Henshaw QC and Emily MacKenzie (instructed by Thomas Cooper) for the Claimants Simon Kverndal QC and Philip Woolfe (instructed by the Defendant) for the Defendant Hearing dates: 11th, 12th, 16th and 17th December 2013 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Approved Judgment I direct that pursuant to CPR PD 39A para 6.1 no official shorthand note shall be taken of this Judgment and that copies of this version as handed down may be treated as authentic. THE HON. MR JUSTICE BIRSS Barco de Vapor v Thanet DC Mr Justice Birss : Topic Paragraph Introduction 1 The Witnesses 11 The law 20 Breach of statutory duty 30 EU law 38 Francovich damages 61 Analysis of the events 71 Events in 2011 76 The monitoring group – early 2012 100 Later in 2012 106 Access to contingency plans 112 The 29th August incident 113 Events on 12th September 121 The ban on 13th September 149 After the ban 158 Applying the law to the facts 168 Was the ban a justifiable breach of Art 35 TFEU? 170 Damages under the Francovich principle? 174 Causation 191 Conclusion 192 Introduction 1. The long-distance transport of live animals for slaughter has been controversial for a long time.
    [Show full text]
  • Waste Collection Commitment Signatories
    Signatories to the Waste Collection Commitment North East Eastern Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council Peterborough City Council Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council Fenland District Council Hartlepool Borough Council Tendring District Council Darlington Borough Council Maldon District Council Gateshead Council Colchester Borough Council Durham Council Chelmsford Borough Council Middlesbrough Council Castle Point Borough Council North Tyneside Borough Council Braintree District Council North Norfolk District Council North West St Edmundsbury Borough Council Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council Forest Heath District Council Hyndburn Borough Council Central Bedfordshire Council Fylde Borough Council South Cambridgeshire District Council Blackburn with Darwen Council Southend-on-Sea Borough Council Cheshire East Council Dacorum Borough Council Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council Broadland District Council Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council Hertsmere Borough Council Wyre Borough Council South Ribble Borough Council East Midlands Stockport Council Chesterfield Borough Council North West Leicestershire District Council West Midlands Charnwood Borough Council Newcastle-under-Lyme Borough Council Blaby District Council Stratford-on-Avon District Council West Lindsey District Council Shropshire Council North Kesteven District Council Wolverhampton City Council South Holland District Council Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council Boston Borough Council Lichfield District Council South Kesteven District Council Stafford Borough Council Lincoln City
    [Show full text]
  • Performance Standards for 2007/8 Consultation
    Proposed Planning Best Value Performance Standards for 2007/8 Consultation A consultation paper Proposed Planning Best Value Performance Standards for 2007/8 Consultation October 2006 Department for Communities and Local Government On 5th May 2006 the responsibilities of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) transferred to the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) Department for Communities and Local Government Eland House Bressenden Place London SW1E 5DU Telephone: 020 7944 4400 Website: www.communities.gov.uk © Crown Copyright, 2006 Copyright in the typographical arrangement rests with the Crown. This publication, excluding logos, may be reproduced free of charge in any format or medium for research, private study or for internal circulation within an organisation. This is subject to it being reproduced accurately and not used in a misleading context. The material must be acknowledged as Crown copyright and the title of the publication specified. Any other use of the contents of this publication would require a copyright licence. Please apply for a Click-Use Licence for core material at www.opsi.gov.uk/click-use/system/online/pLogin.asp, or by writing to the Office of Public Sector Information, Information Policy Team, St Clements House, 2-16 Colegate, Norwich, NR3 1BQ. Fax: 01603 723000 or email: [email protected] If you require this publication in an alternative format please email [email protected] DCLG Publications PO Box 236 Wetherby West Yorkshire LS23 7NB Tel: 08701 226 236 Fax: 08701 226 237 Textphone: 08701 207 405 Email: [email protected] or online via the DCLG website: www.communities.gov.uk October 2006 Product Code: 06 PD 04181 Introduction The Government proposes to set further planning Best Value performance standards in 2007/08 under section 4 of the Local Government Act 1999.
    [Show full text]
  • Thanet District Council Action Plan
    Thanet District Council – Climate Change Action Plan 1 & 2 Climate Change Action Plan 1- Actions underway and committed We are using this action plan as an initial framework for our response to the climate and ecological emergency. This action plan provides an outline of actions already in progress and this is a working document. Action Plan 2 contains all proposed actions not yet started or funded. Areas of focus are those which are already outlined as headings within the Kent Environment Strategy. https://www.kent.gov.uk/about-the-council/strategies-and-policies/environment-waste-and-planning-policies/environmental-policies/kent-environ ment-strategy Housing Financial implications: Already Progress- budgeted/ Other Started/Pl external Lead External Area of focus Action Outcome Timescales departments anned/Pro funding officer stakeholders involved posed achieved or identified/ funding required? TDC is committed to increasing All TDC new Newbuild energy efficiency standards as build units schemes well as reducing the district's meet the complete in carbon footprint. Currently TDC energy 2020/21 and Already is proposing to install 23.6 kWp efficiency letting committed as Housing Housing of solar panel systems across requirements Started commences part of Total Strategy Planning Contractors the TDC Affordable Homes set out in the thereafter. contract Manager Programme - Phase 3. This will Building Reduction in value result, in a reduction of approx Regulations energy uses 50,090 kg of carbon and a Approved will be known generation of 18,202 kWh of Documents : from then. 1/38 Thanet District Council – Climate Change Action Plan 1 & 2 (renewable energy) electricity L1A over a five year period.
    [Show full text]
  • Local Authorities Involved in LAD2, Organised Into County Area Consortia for the Purpose of the Scheme
    Local Authorities involved in LAD2, organised into county area consortia for the purpose of the scheme. Bedfordshire Bedford Borough Central Bedfordshire Luton Borough Milton Keynes Berkshire Bracknell Forest Reading Slough West Berkshire Windsor & Maidenhead Wokingham Buckinghamshire Buckinghamshire Council Cambridge Cambridge City East Cambridgeshire District Fenland District Council Huntingdonshire District Peterborough City Council South Cambridgeshire District East Sussex Eastbourne Borough Hastings Borough Lewes District Rother District Council Wealden District Council Essex Basildon Braintree Brentwood Borough Council Castle Point Chelmsford Colchester Epping Forest Harlow Maldon Rochford Southend on Sea Tendring Thurrock Uttlesford District Hampshire Basingstoke & Deane Borough Council East Hampshire District Council Hart District Council Rushmoor Borough Council Test Valley Borough Council Winchester City Council Hertfordshire Broxbourne Borough Dacorum Borough East Herts District Council Hertsmere Borough North Hertfordshire District St Albans City & District Stevenage Borough Three Rivers District Watford Borough Welwyn Hatfield Borough Kent Ashford Borough Council Canterbury City Council Dartford Borough Council Dover District Council Folkestone & Hythe District Council Gravesham Borough Council Maidstone Borough Council Medway Council Sevenoaks District Council Swale Borough Council Thanet District Council Tonbridge & Malling Borough Council Tunbridge Wells Borough Council London Barking & Dagenham Bexley Bromley Camden City
    [Show full text]
  • Homeless Persons) Act of 1977 Amy B
    Urban Law Annual ; Journal of Urban and Contemporary Law Volume 31 Homeless Symposium | CERCLA Symposium January 1987 Great Britain's Answer to Homelessness: The Housing (Homeless Persons) Act of 1977 Amy B. Corday Follow this and additional works at: https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_urbanlaw Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Amy B. Corday, Great Britain's Answer to Homelessness: The Housing (Homeless Persons) Act of 1977, 31 Wash. U. J. Urb. & Contemp. L. 201 (1987) Available at: https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_urbanlaw/vol31/iss1/9 This Homeless Symposium is brought to you for free and open access by the Law School at Washington University Open Scholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Urban Law Annual ; Journal of Urban and Contemporary Law by an authorized administrator of Washington University Open Scholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. GREAT BRITAIN'S ANSWER TO HOMELESSNESS: THE HOUSING (HOMELESS PERSONS) ACT OF 1977 At least one quarter of the world's population lacks adequate hous- ing, including approximately 100 million persons who are completely homeless.' Although most homeless persons reside in developing countries, a surprisingly large number live in industrialized nations.2 While the United States government has not adopted a comprehensive policy to deal with its homeless population, the British government has attempted to address this problem at a national level. This section of the symposium examines Britain's efforts to resolve the problem of homelessness through the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act of 1977.' I. OVERVIEW OF THE ACT In an effort to curb increasing homelessness,4 overcrowding, and sub-standard housing throughout Great Britain,5 Parliament enacted the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act of 1977.
    [Show full text]
  • Ramsgate Urban Panel
    Historic England Urban Panel Ramsgate Visit 28-29 September 2016 Final Report Contents 1. Executive Summary 2. About the Urban Panel 3. Background to the Ramsgate Visit 4. Ramsgate’s Historic Environment 5. Background to Planning for Ramsgate 6. The Panel’s visit 7. Analysis 8. Recommendations 9. Epilogue Urban Panel Report: Ramsgate 28-29 September 2016 Page 1 1. Executive Summary The Urban Panel visited Ramsgate on 28-9 September 2016 at the request of the District Council and was supported in its examination of both Ramsgate and the recent successes of regeneration in Margate by the Council’s staff. Ramsgate’s heritage provides a tangible and valuable resource for regeneration of the town – a town which, in spite of areas of wealth and success, also has a concentration of wards that fall within the top 10% of indices of deprivation. The Panel was invited to consider a number of related issues centring on the Harbour and its uses but also the neighbouring port and the adjoining parts of the town centre. The Panel was able to meet representatives of several community organisations over dinner, providing an opportunity to discuss the issues and opportunities facing the town in an informal atmosphere. In addition to a bus tour of the east and west cliff areas, the Panel undertook walking tours of the Royal Harbour and Harbour Street and environs to assess the current performance of the town centre and recent planning issues. The compact town centre and harbour, the Panel felt, provide an initial focus for visitors to explore which can act as a springboard to the heritage assets of the east and west cliffs.
    [Show full text]
  • Kent and Medway Risk Profile
    Kent & Medway Risk Profile Update 2017 Kent Fire & Rescue Service Kent & Medway Risk Profile Update 2017 Kent & Medway Risk Profile Update 2017 Contents Introduction .............................................................................................................. 4 County Overview ...................................................................................................... 5 Demographics and Population Risk Factors ......................................................... 7 Population ........................................................................................................................................... 7 Household Types ................................................................................................................................. 9 Deprivation ....................................................................................................................................... 10 Overall County Risk ............................................................................................... 12 Dwellings ........................................................................................................................................... 12 Special Service RTC ........................................................................................................................... 13 Future Risk Modelling ....................................................................................................................... 13 Geodemographic Segmentation ..........................................................................
    [Show full text]