DOCSLIB.ORG

Who Governs Merseyside?

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Who Governs Merseyside? Who Governs Merseyside? A Democratic Audit Briefing Paper Stuart Wilks-Heeg, Dave Ellis and Alex Nurse Who Governs Merseyside? | A Democratic Audit Briefing Paper 2 Who Governs Merseyside? Dave Sinclair School students’ strike, 1985, from the exhibition Democratic Promenade, at the Bluecoat A Democratic Audit Briefing Paper | October 2011 Stuart Wilks-Heeg, Dave Ellis and Alex Nurse Key points l Just under half of identifiable spending by these roles are quite widely dispersed, public service organisations on Merseyside although 64 per cent are occupied by is controlled by elected local authorities. men. A small number of individuals occupy three or more such roles – 16 of l Taken together, local councils and local these 18 individuals are councillors, and NHS Trusts account for 80 per cent of the gender balance is roughly equal (ten direct local public service spending on men, eight women). Merseyside. l The Labour Party is currently the dominant l There are almost 40,000 businesses on political force in the city-region by some Merseyside, of which around 10 per cent margin. Compared to the composition of are members of one of the five local councils across Merseyside, councillors chambers of commerce. who take up multiple governing roles are l Significant business power is likely to be more likely both to be Labour and to be located in individual companies which male. are major employers or which have l The city-region’s two daily newspapers substantial development interests in the serve contrasting readerships and region. Some, but by no means all, of are likely to influence local politics in these interests are represented on the distinctive ways. ‘shadow board’ of the proposed Local l Ownership of the local press is dominated Economic Partnership for Merseyside. by the Trinity Mirror Group, which owns l Merseyside has a large and diverse both the Liverpool Echo and the Liverpool voluntary sector, made up of thousands Daily Post, as well as 13 weekly titles of individual organisations. However, the published in the city-region. extent of voluntary sector influence on l BBC Radio Merseyside has the largest public policy is difficult to gauge. market share among radio broadcasters in l Analysis of some 1,100 governing the city-region, closely followed by Radio positions in the city-region suggests that City 96.7. Key points Who Governs Merseyside? | A Democratic Audit Briefing Paper 3 l A detailed analysis of who occupies a Introduction total of 1,100 places on governing boards across Merseyside, encompassing local government, NHS trusts, single-purpose agencies for policing, fire and waste disposal, universities, colleges, chambers of commerce and others; l The structure and ownership of the local media, including the circulation of local newspapers, and the audience shares gained by regional radio broadcasters. his briefing has been produced Before turning to the research to inform a unique project set up findings directly, the briefing begins Tto explore who wields political with a short discussion of the wider power on Merseyside in 2011, and how issues raised by attempts to study they are accountable to local people. power in city-regional politics. It also Representing an amalgam of academic provides a brief assessment of the study, public inquiry and theatre, previous role of Merseyside County the project has been co-organised by Council, the elected city-regional Democratic Audit and the Bluecoat, authority abolished twenty-five years a Liverpool-based arts centre. Based ago, in 1986, and an account of recent around a two-stage event, the project developments in (unelected) city- forms part of the Bluecoat’s Democratic regional governance for the Liverpool Promenade exhibition, taking place city-region. from 30 September to 27 November Throughout this briefing, the terms 2011. ‘Merseyside’ and ‘Liverpool City- The purpose of this briefing is to Region’ are used interchangeably. In provide an initial evidence base for the both cases, these terms refer to the first event, to be held at the Bluecoat area covered by the former Merseyside on 6 October 2011, when a panel of County Council, namely the five experts will be asked for their views Metropolitan Borough Councils on who has the power to shape public of Liverpool, Sefton, Knowsley, St. policy on Merseyside. Intended to Helens and the Wirral (although some inform discussion and debate, rather definitions of the Liverpool city-region than to advance a view on who governs also include Halton Borough Council). Merseyside, this briefing draws on Democratic Audit research into the following five key aspects of gover- nance and politics in the city-region: West Lancashire l The extent of public sector spending on Merseyside and the relative significance of the 29 main public service organisations Wigan identified, as measured by their ‘spending Sefton power’; St Helens l The scale and organisation of the private sector on Merseyside, including the Knowsley number of companies, the role of large Wirral Liverpool corporations in the local economy and the representation of local businesses through Halton the local chambers of commerce; l The organisation and representation of the voluntary sector on Merseyside; Chester and W Cheshire Introduction Who Governs Merseyside? | A Democratic Audit Briefing Paper 4 Who governs? If we are required to ‘look up’ to understand how Merseyside is governed, then we must also ‘look down’. We cannot reach a view on who governs Merseyside without examining its various sub-units, not just the city of Liverpool as its core city, but also the four other Metropolitan Boroughs of Sefton, the Wirral, Knowsley and St. Helens. Indeed, the governance structures for he apparently straightforward Merseyside as a whole are remarkably question of ‘who governs?’ is, in ‘light touch’, amounting to a small Tfact, one of the most complex and number of statutory authorities for most controversial in political science. policing, fire and waste disposal, Originally posed by classic American together with some non-statutory academic studies of city politics,1 it partnership arrangements. The power is a question which clearly requires of Liverpool-based individuals and us to go beyond the formal, visible organisations relative to those in the structures of democratic politics and other constituent parts of Merseyside public governance, important as these is therefore another important factor to are. When we ask ‘who governs?’ we consider. are really trying to ascertain who has It is perhaps fitting, therefore, the power to shape and determine that we are posing the question of public policy, including the power who governs Merseyside in the 25th to keep issues off the policy agenda anniversary year of the abolition of altogether. Elected representatives and Merseyside County Council (MCC). civil servants are clearly an important Formally abolished on 31 March 1986, part of the story of ‘who governs?’ – but MCC had been created only 12 years so too are a range of individuals and previously as a ‘strategic authority’ for organisations beyond the political Merseyside – one of six Metropolitan parties and the state. In a democracy, County Councils established in the power does not begin and end with largest English conurbations on 1 periodic elections. Organised pressure April 1974.2 Following the model of groups also play a role, as do forms of the Greater London Council, which systemic power exercised, for instance, had been established in 1965, the ‘Met by individual corporations and media Counties’ were mostly charged with organisations. providing strategic policy co-ordination All of these issues come to the fore in areas such as land-use planning, when we try to establish who governs public transport and policing. a city-region like Merseyside. But studying power locally raises other issues too. Unlike in centuries past, cities are not self-governing ‘city- states’. The UK government largely defines the parameters of local democracy on Merseyside, as it does in all localities, and ‘supra-national’ organisations such as the European Union also have a role. 2 The other Metropolitan County Councils served Greater 1 See Robert Dahl (1961) Who Governs? Democracy and power in an Manchester, South Yorkshire, Tyne and Weir, the West Midlands and American city, New Haven: Yale University Press. West Yorkshire. Who Governs? Who Governs Merseyside? | A Democratic Audit Briefing Paper 5 The rise and fall of Redcliffe Maud Commission (1969) in favour of two-tier local government, Merseyside County including in metropolitan areas.3 Council In truth, the reasons for the abolition of the Metropolitan Counties almost certainly had more to do with the political conflict between Margaret Thatcher and Labour-controlled local authorities, particularly the GLC under Ken Livingstone, in the early 1980s. As one academic account from the s one of six Metropolitan County period notes the Metropolitan Counties Councils created by the Local ‘have, perhaps, rather unluckily been AGovernment Act 1972, the main included in the abolition proposal responsibilities of Merseyside County because of their structural and Council were transport, policing, the functional similarity to the GLC and, as fire service, arts and museums, waste several have argued, because they all disposal and land-use planning. Like at the moment happen to be Labour- the other Metropolitan Counties and controlled’.4 It is also worth noting that the GLC, Merseyside County Council some of the Metropolitan Counties, was accountable to the local electorate, most notably Merseyside, had adopted with elections held every four years. policies similar to those advocated by Labour won the first elections to Livingstone’s GLC. Under Coombes, MCC in 1974, but lost control of the Merseyside County Council had council to the Conservatives in 1977, developed an equivalent of the GLC’s before regaining its majority at the popular ‘fares fare’ policy, for instance, 1981 elections. However, the elections through which the council sought to scheduled for 1985 were cancelled increase the use of public transport by because of the provisions made in radically cutting bus and train fares the Local Government Act 1985 to within Merseyside.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Garrick Parade, Lord Street Southport, Merseyside Pr8 1Rn
    GARRICK PARADE, LORD STREET SOUTHPORT, MERSEYSIDE PR8 1RN TOWN CENTRE LEISURE INVESTMENT OPPORTUNITY INVESTMENT SUMMARY • Located in the affluent costal town of Southport. • Current rent of £195,778 per annum. • Comprising 47,734 sq ft. • May be suitable for alternative uses subject to necessary planning consents. • Site area of approximately 0.92 acres, situated in the town centre. • Seeking offers in excess of £1.667M (One Million Six Hundred and Sixty subject to contract and exclusive of VAT. • Let to Mecca Bingo Ltd until September 2021. Seven Thousand Pounds) • Net initial yield of 11% after allowance for unadjusted purchasers costs • Tenant did not exercise their recent break option showing their of 6.8%. commitment to the property. LOCATION SITUATION Southport is an attractive and affluent coastal town located in Merseyside approximately 16 miles The subject property is situated on the north side of Garrick Parade which runs parallel to Lord north of Liverpool, and 34 miles north west of Manchester. Road communications are excellent Street, one of Southport’s principal retailing thoroughfares. Nearby occupiers include a large with the town benefiting from the A565 which runs south to Liverpool and north to Preston. Morrisons supermarket, B&M Bargains, Travelodge, Pizza Express and JD Wetherspoon. Rail links in Southport are also strong with Southport Railway Station providing regular direct services to Liverpool Central with an approximate journey time of 45 minutes. MANCHESTER KINGSWAY D U K E S T . OS Plan B&W 333200 333300 417100 417100 DESCRIPTION The subject property comprises a grade II listed bingo hall of brick construction with a site area of approximately 0.92 acres.
    [Show full text]
  • Liverpool Maritime Mercantile City World Heritage Site Supplementary Planning Document – Liverpool City Council Consultation – Wirral Council Response ______
    WIRRAL COUNCIL CABINET – 9th April 2009 REPORT OF THE DEPUTY CHIEF EXECUTIVE/DIRECTOR OF CORPORATE SERVICES LIVERPOOL MARITIME MERCANTILE CITY WORLD HERITAGE SITE SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENT – LIVERPOOL CITY COUNCIL CONSULTATION – WIRRAL COUNCIL RESPONSE _________________________________________________________________________ 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.1 Liverpool City Council has issued a consultation draft Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) on the Liverpool Maritime Mercantile City World Heritage Site (WHS), which includes the Liverpool Waterfront and parts of Liverpool City Centre. The Liverpool Waterfront has a buffer zone extending to the centre of the River Mersey, with rigorous controls on development to be provided in that zone by policies in the emerging Liverpool Local Development Framework. The City Council’s draft SPD sets out a more detailed planning policy framework for the WHS, which has an overall aim of encouraging economic regeneration, whilst ensuring the protection of the outstanding universal value of the WHS. 1.2 Consultation responses are required by 14 th April and Cabinet is asked to agree that the comments of the Director of Corporate Services within this report form the response to Liverpool City Council on the Liverpool World Heritage Site Supplementary Planning Document. 2. The Consultation Supplementary Planning Document Outlined 2.1 The Liverpool WHS was defined by the United Nations Educational and Scientific Organisation (UNESCO) in 2004 as: ‘the supreme example of a commercial port at the time of Britain’s greatest global influence’ . Both the port and parts of the city centre were included to reflect the influence on the built environment of the early development of dock construction, port management and international trading systems in the 18 th and 19 th centuries.
    [Show full text]
  • Household Flood Resilience and Protection
    Household flood resilience and protection: a Defra consultation workshop (E8515) Manchester United Football Club, Sir Matt Busby Way, Old Trafford, Manchester - NAME POSITION ORGANISATION STATUS Mr Shaun Alexander Merseyside Waste & Disposal Delegate Mr Mark Bartlett Civil Contingencies Lancaster City Council Delegate Officer Mr Geoff Baslett Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Delegate Mr John Batty Director Bluejohn Marketing Chairman Mr David Beddoes Student University of Wolverhampton Delegate Mr David Bithell Public Health Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council Delegate Services Manager Mr Rob Bromley Emergency Planning Trafford Metropolitan Borough Delegate Officer Mr Samuel Brougham Architect/Sustainabilit PRP Architects Delegate y Consultant Mr Mark Camborne Health,Safety & Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council Delegate Resilience Manager Ms Rita Carletti Project Officer Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council Delegate Mr Philip Charles Project Manager CIRIA CIRIA Staff Mr Ian Clark Principal Engineer RSK Group Ltd Delegate Mr Derek Cochrane Director Derek Cochrane Associates Delegate Ms Aimee Conroy Traniee Emergency Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council Delegate Planning Officer Mr Stephen Corrigan Head of Emergency Liverpool Primary Care Trust Delegate Planning Mrs Maureen Denham Claims Handler RBS Delegate Mr Ian Dixon Watch Manager Merseyside Fire & Rescue Service Delegate Mr Mark Ellis Regeneration Team Capita Symonds Ltd Delegate Leader Miss Emma-Jane Ellison Emergency Planning Shropshire County Council Delegate Officer Mr Glenn Finch Special
    [Show full text]
  • Southport Bid
    November 2014 SOUTHPORT BID SOUTHPORT DESTINATION SURVEY 2014 NORTH WEST RESEARCH North West Research, operated by: The Liverpool City Region Local Enterprise Partnership 12 Princes Parade Liverpool, L3 1BG 0151 237 3521 North West Research This study has been produced by the in-house research team at the Liverpool City Region Local Enterprise Partnership. The team produces numerous key publications for the area, including the annual Digest of Tourism Statistics, in addition to collating key data and managing many regular research projects such as Hotel Occupancy and the Merseyside Visitor Survey. Under the badge of North West Research (formerly known as England‟s Northwest Research Service) the team conducts numerous commercial research projects, with a particular specialism in the visitor economy and event evaluation. Over the last 10 years, North West Research has completed over 250 projects for both public and private sector clients. 2 | Southport Destination Survey 2014 NORTH WEST RESEARCH CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background 1.2 Research aims 1 1.3 Methodology VISITOR PROFILE 2.1 Visitor origin 2.2 Group composition 2.3 Employment status 2 VISIT PROFILE 3.1 Type of visit 3.2 Accommodation 3 VISIT MOTIVATION 4.1 Visit motivation 4.2 Marketing influences 4.3 Frequency of visits to Southport 4 TRANSPORT 5.1 Mode of transport 5.2 Car park usage 5 VISIT SATISFACTION 6.1 Visit satisfaction ratings 6.2 Safety 6.3 Likelihood of recommending 6 6.4 Overall satisfaction TOURISM INFORMATION CENTRES 7.1 TIC Awareness 7 VISIT ACTIVITY 8.1 Visit activity 8.2 Future visits to Sefton‟s Natural Coast 8 VISITOR SPEND 9.1 Visitors staying in Southport 9.2 Visitors staying outside Southport 9.3 Day visitors 9 APPENDIX 1: Questionnaire 3 | Southport Destination Survey 2014 NORTH WEST RESEARCH INTRODUCTION 1 1.1: BACKGROUND The Southport Destination Survey is a study focusing on exploring visitor patterns, establishing what motivates people to visit the town, identifying visitor spending patterns, and examining visitor perceptions and satisfaction ratings.
    [Show full text]
  • Putting the Geo in Media Studies Reviewed By: Les Roberts
    Published online in European Journal of Communication, 16 Nov 2018 https://doi.org/10.1177/0267323118811690 “The news where you are”: putting the geo in media studies Christopher Ali Media Localism: The Policies of Place, University of Illinois Press: Urbana, Chicago, Springfield, 2017; 272 pp.: £18.99. ISBN: 9780252082238 Karin Fast, André Jansson, Johan Lindell, Linda Ryan Bengtsson, Mekonnen Tesfahuney (eds.) Geomedia Studies: Spaces and Mobilities in Mediatized Worlds, Routledge: New York, London, 2017; 288 pp.: £110.00. ISBN: 9781138221529 Reviewed by: Les Roberts, University of Liverpool At the end of BBC television’s national news programme, the newsreader signs off, with ritual precision, by handing over to the regional news services with the words ‘…and now the news from where you are’. Where am I, tell me? I’m wont to ask on such occasions, looking to secure some sense of local and regional belonging as mirrored back through my television screen. On then trundles BBC North West Tonight which, between the moments of inane (and no less ritualistic) banter that the presenting team insist on sharing, covers news events in Cheshire, Greater Manchester, Merseyside, Lancashire, Cumbria, as well as parts of Derbyshire and Yorkshire. So this is where I am: an imagined community that is magically conjured up by the necessarily loose regional descriptor ‘North West’. Yet, geographically at least, I do not live in the North West, I live just across the English-Welsh border in North Wales, a few miles from the English city of Chester. In a post-analogue television landscape where the direction my television aerial is pointed in no longer so narrowly determines what is beamed into my living room, I could easily opt to change my default regional news setting to BBC Wales Today: another imagined media community in which otherwise quite disparate localities – from my home county of Flintshire in North East Wales all the way down to Cardiff or Swansea in the south west – are corralled into a similar geographic container in which news is transacted ‘where you are’.
    [Show full text]
  • Historical and Contemporary Archaeologies of Social Housing: Changing Experiences of the Modern and New, 1870 to Present
    Historical and contemporary archaeologies of social housing: changing experiences of the modern and new, 1870 to present Thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy at the University of Leicester by Emma Dwyer School of Archaeology and Ancient History University of Leicester 2014 Thesis abstract: Historical and contemporary archaeologies of social housing: changing experiences of the modern and new, 1870 to present Emma Dwyer This thesis has used building recording techniques, documentary research and oral history testimonies to explore how concepts of the modern and new between the 1870s and 1930s shaped the urban built environment, through the study of a particular kind of infrastructure that was developed to meet the needs of expanding cities at this time – social (or municipal) housing – and how social housing was perceived and experienced as a new kind of built environment, by planners, architects, local government and residents. This thesis also addressed how the concepts and priorities of the Victorian and Edwardian periods, and the decisions made by those in authority regarding the form of social housing, continue to shape the urban built environment and impact on the lived experience of social housing today. In order to address this, two research questions were devised: How can changing attitudes and responses to the nature of modern life between the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries be seen in the built environment, specifically in the form and use of social housing? Can contradictions between these earlier notions of the modern and new, and our own be seen in the responses of official authority and residents to the built environment? The research questions were applied to three case study areas, three housing estates constructed between 1910 and 1932 in Birmingham, London and Liverpool.
    [Show full text]
  • Strategy 2021-2025 Introduction Our Vision
    Improving Health and Wellbeing in Cheshire and Merseyside Strategy 2021-2025 Introduction Our Vision The NHS Long Term Plan published in 2019 called for health and care to be more joined up locally to meet people’s needs. Since then, ICSs (Integrated Care Systems) We want everyone in Cheshire and Merseyside to have developed across England as a vehicle for the NHS to work in partnership have a great start in life, and get the support they with local councils and other key stakeholders to take collective responsibility for need to stay healthy and live longer. improving the health and wellbeing of the population, co-ordinating services together and managing resources collectively. Cheshire and Merseyside was designated an ICS by NHS England in April 2021. Our Mission Cheshire and Merseyside is one of the largest ICSs with a population of 2.6 million people living across a large and diverse geographical footprint. We will tackle health inequalities and improve the The ICS brings together nine ‘Places’ lives of the poorest fastest. We believe we can do coterminous with individual local this best by working in partnership. authority boundaries, 19 NHS Provider Trusts and 51 Primary Care Networks. There are many underlying population In the pages that follow, we set out our strategic objectives and associated aspirations health challenges in the region; for that will enable us to achieve our vision and mission over the next five years. They are example in Liverpool City Region 44% derived from NHS England’s stated purpose for ICSs and joint working with our partners of the population live in the top 20% to identify the key areas for focus if we are to reduce health inequalities and improve lives.
    [Show full text]
  • Select Committee of Tynwald on the Television Licence Fee Report 2010/11
    PP108/11 SELECT COMMITTEE OF TYNWALD ON THE TELEVISION LICENCE FEE REPORT 2010/11 REPORT OF THE SELECT COMMITTEE OF TYNWALD ON THE TELEVISION LICENCE FEE At the sitting of Tynwald Court on 18th November 2009 it was resolved - "That Tynwald appoints a Committee of three Members with powers to take written and oral evidence pursuant to sections 3 and 4 of the Tynwald Proceedings Act 1876, as amended, to investigate the feasibility and impact of withdrawal from or amendment of the agreement under which residents of the Isle of Man pay a television licence fee; and to report." The powers, privileges and immunities relating to the work of a committee of Tynwald are those conferred by sections 3 and 4 of the Tynwald Proceedings Act 1876, sections 1 to 4 of the Privileges of Tynwald (Publications) Act 1973 and sections 2 to 4 of the Tynwald Proceedings Act 1984. Mr G D Cregeen MHK (Malew & Santon) (Chairman) Mr D A Callister MLC Hon P A Gawne MHK (Rushen) Copies of this Report may be obtained from the Tynwald Library, Legislative Buildings, Finch Road, Douglas IM7 3PW (Tel 07624 685520, Fax 01624 685522) or may be consulted at www, ,tynwald.orgim All correspondence with regard to this Report should be addressed to the Clerk of Tynwald, Legislative Buildings, Finch Road, Douglas IMI 3PW TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Introduction 1 2. The broadcasting landscape in the Isle of Man 4 Historical background 4 Legal framework 5 The requirement to pay the licence fee 5 Whether the licence fee is a UK tax 6 Licence fee collection and enforcement 7 Infrastructure for terrestrial broadcasting 10 Television 10 Radio: limitations of analogue transmission capability and extent of DAB coverage 13 3.
    [Show full text]
  • Sefton, West Lancashire, St Helens
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND REVIEW OF MERSEYSIDE THE METROPOLITAN BOROUGH OF KNOWSLEY Boundaries with: SEFTON WEST LANCASHIRE ST HELENS HALTON (CHESHIRE) LIVERPOOL WEST LANCASHIRE SEFTON ST HELENS .IVERPOOL HALTON REPORT NO. 668 LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND REPORT NO 668 LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND CHAIRMAN Mr K F J Ennals CB MEMBERS Mr G R Prentice Mrs H R V Sarkany Mr C W Smith Professor K Young THE RT HON MICHAEL HOWARD QC MP SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE ENVIRONMENT REVIEW OF MERSEYSIDE THE METROPOLITAN BOROUGH OF KNOWSLEY AND ITS BOUNDARIES WITH WEST LANCASHIRE, ST HELENS, HALTON (CHESHIRE), LIVERPOOL AND SEFTON COMMISSION'S FINAL REPORT INTRODUCTION 1 . This report contains our final proposals for the Metropolitan Borough of Knowsley's boundaries with the City of Liverpool, the Metropolitan Borough of St Helens, the District of West Lancashire in Lancashire, the Borough of Halton in Cheshire and part of its boundary with the Metropolitan Borough of Sefton. Our recommendations in respect of the review of the Borough of Sefton are contained in Report No. 664. We shall be reporting on the City of Liverpool's boundary with Sefton and Wirral separately. 2. Although during the course of the review we considered the possibility of radical changes to Knowsley, including its abolition, our final proposals involve major change only in relation to the Parish of Simonswood which we are proposing should be transferred to Lancashire. The remainder of our final proposals involve minor changes to Knowsley's boundaries to remove anomalies and defacements. 3. As required by Section 60(2) of the Local Government Act 1972, we have carefully considered all the representations made to us at each stage of the review.
    [Show full text]
  • Framework Users (Clients)
    TC622 – NORTH WEST CONSTRUCTION HUB MEDIUM VALUE FRAMEWORK (2019 to 2023) Framework Users (Clients) Prospective Framework users are as follows: Local Authorities - Cheshire - Cheshire East Council - Cheshire West and Chester Council - Halton Borough Council - Warrington Borough Council; Cumbria - Allerdale Borough Council - Copeland Borough Council - Barrow in Furness Borough Council - Carlisle City Council - Cumbria County Council - Eden District Council - South Lakeland District Council; Greater Manchester - Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council - Bury Metropolitan Borough Council - Manchester City Council – Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council - Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council - Salford City Council – Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council - Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council - Trafford Metropolitan Borough - Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council; Lancashire - Blackburn with Darwen Borough Council – Blackpool Borough Council - Burnley Borough Council - Chorley Borough Council - Fylde Borough Council – Hyndburn Borough Council - Lancashire County Council - Lancaster City Council - Pendle Borough Council – Preston City Council - Ribble Valley Borough Council - Rossendale Borough Council - South Ribble Borough Council - West Lancashire Borough Council - Wyre Borough Council; Merseyside - Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council - Liverpool City Council - Sefton Council - St Helens Metropolitan Borough Council - Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council; Police Authorities - Cumbria Police Authority - Lancashire Police Authority - Merseyside
    [Show full text]
  • Merseyside Leaders and Chief Executives' Meeting
    Liverpool City Region Port Access Steering Group Terms of Reference 1. Introduction The Terms of Reference set out below outline context, governance, focus and responsibilities of the Liverpool City Region (LCR) Port Access Steering Group. The Group has been established to support the City Region Cabinet and Local Enterprise Partnership and the delivery of the LCR City Region Deal commitment to address transport access to the Port of Liverpool in support of the wider Superport proposals. 2. Terms of Reference Purpose . To deliver the commitments in the Liverpool City Region Deal relating to access to the Port of Liverpool. To facilitate the delivery of the packages of transport measures across all modes that will provide the required transport access improvements for the future of the Port of Liverpool through the development and implementation of an agreed work programme. Shared priority statement . To see the realisation of the economic benefits of SuperPort and the Port of Liverpool expansion for the wider City Region and for the local communities near the Port. To support interventions that will mitigate and manage the environmental impacts of port expansion and associated transport activity Accountability . The partners within the Group will be accountable to each other to ensure that partnership working is productive, sustainable and supportive. Partners responsible for specific interventions will be accountable to the Steering Group for ensuring the delivery those interventions. The Steering Group will be directly accountable to the Liverpool City Region Cabinet. Reports on progress will also be provided for information to and engagement with the Local Transport Plan Board, the Local Transport Body, the Local Enterprise Partnership Superport Committee and the City Region Deal Implementation group.
    [Show full text]
  • Effectiveness of SRB Programmes Scrutiny
    Scrutiny Report to City Council The Effectiveness of Birmingham SRB Programmes in Getting People into Work safeguarded’ be retained only as an ancillary outcome measure of the employment impact. 5. Thematic regeneration schemes such as Enterprise Link, Core Skills and the CEBP were designed to focus on one particular aspect of the problems facing the community or business. Arguably this single focus has enabled the schemes to have greater impact. The early programmes arose partly because the funding previously allocated to those types of actions was brought into the SRB. Many of the comments we received about the early rounds indicated concern because the various agencies “who were said to be trying to get their money back.” However the schemes in Birmingham such as the Core Skills Programme have been nationally recognised as innovative best practice and several comments were received on the positive impact the schemes have had on mainstream services. 6. The area-based schemes are all complex initiatives targeting large densely populated urban areas. Within the scope of the SRB the programmes have tried to create a balance between projects designed to address social, economic and physical issues. In SRB 1 for example the total grant was £12.8m and the key actions included commercial area improvements, housing and education and labour market initiatives. The nature of the market failure in these areas is so severe that the programmes are in danger of spreading themselves too thinly to achieve a significant impact. This point was made several times by programme managers and board members alike. 6.3 The Partnership Process and Management arrangements 6.3.1 The Partnership Process A central feature to the SRBCF has been the partnership approach to regeneration.
    [Show full text]