DOCSLIB.ORG

FOR ENGLAND REPORT No. 5

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
FOR ENGLAND REPORT No. 5 J?.-- ,,-. ---V., V. M. BRAYBROOK LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND REPORT No. 5 LONDON HER MAJESTY'S STATIONERY OFFICE 1973 13p net LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND REPORT No. 5 LONDON HER MAJESTY'S STATIONERY OFFICE 1973 Crown copyright 1973 JSBN.O 11 700705 6 LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND CHAIRMAN Sir Edmund Compton, GCB, KBE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN Mr J M Rankin, QC MEMBERS The Countess of Albemarle, DBE Mr T C Benfield Professor Michael Chisholm Sir Andrew Wheatley, CBE Mr F B Young, CBE in THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND REPORT No. 5 - The Commission in their Report No. 3, dated 31 May 1973, made proposals for the constitution and naming of successor parishes. Further proposals are made in the attached letter, dated 1 November 1973, which has been sent to the Secretary of State by the Chairman on behalf of the Commission. DAVID R SMITH (Secretary) 1 November 1973 IV The Rt Hon Geoffrey Rippon QC MP Secretary of State for the Environment 1 November 1973 SUCCESSOR PARISHES (RESUMED REVIEW) 1. In your letter to me of 15 August 1973 you asked the Commission to consider and report to you on the representations you had received from a number of applicants for successor parish status who were not included in the recommendations that we made to you in our Report No. 3 on 31 May last. 2. When we met on 9 August 1973 you told me that in general you were satislied with the recommendations that had resulted from our interpretation and application of the guidelines of 22 January 1973 and that you did not wish us to carry out a fresh review under modified guidelines. 3. Your suggestion was that the Commission might continue the review under the 22 January guidelines that resulted in our Report No. 3, by con- sidering, in the light of representations made since that Report, whether any fresh facts or arguments have been adduced in special instances which might move the Commission to exercise the discretion given to us by the existing guidelines for such exceptional treatment as might lead to additional recom- mendations for successor parish status. 4. After examining these representations, we confirm that, for the most part, they repeat arguments which have previously been presented in full to us and add nothing to the information on which, in the light of the guidelines, we decided not to include them in Report No. 3. 5. However, the timetable by which you required us to complete our first recommendations did not allow us to test our interpretation of the guidelines by means of draft proposals. We therefore welcome the opportunity which you have given us to review the judgements which we reached on the original information, in the light of the opinions which were evoked by Report No. 3, both locally and in Parliament. 6. Much of the criticisms in these further representations is against the guidelines. You have decided not to revise these and it is not for us to speculate on the scope for additional recommendations that might have followed from their modification. But we have taken advantage of the suggestion you made to me on 9 August and have looked again at the scope the existing guidelines give us for exercising our discretion in applying the criteria in particular cases. We have also looked at these further representations to see if they adduce any additional evidence which would have a bearing on our recommendations. 1 METROPOLITAN DISTRICTS 7. Eighty-four of the applications which we did not recommend were for towns in metropolitan districts and 52 of these were the subject of further representations. For this class of applicant, we see no reason to modify the principles on which we applied the 'continuously built-up areas' criterion, as stated in paragraphs 15-20 of Report No. 3. When formulating the recom- mendations in that Report there was a substantial number of instances where size disqualified; in other instances, local wishes were in conflict; but for most, the reason for refusal was that the case was not strong enough to leave us in no doubt about the absence of continuous urban development. Following our review of the further representations there are 10 cases where the doubt has been resolved and we can now recommend successor parish status. These are: Name of Local authority area successor parish Denby Dale UD Denby Dale Featherstone UD Featherstone Hetton UD Hetton Holmfirth UD Holmfirth Horwich UD Horwich Ilkley UD Llkley Kirkburton UD Kirkburton Meltham UD Meltham Normanton UD Normanton Saddleworth UD Saddleworth Apart from those listed above, we confirm that we have no further recommenda- tions to make, repeating our view, expressed in Report No. 3, that ours is the initial operation and that we believe that further consideration is in the first place for the new districts, as provided by Section 48(8) of the Local Government Act 1972. NON-METROPOLITAN DISTRICTS 8. Here the 'continuously built-up area' disqualification was fairly rare especially outside the new towns. Diversity of local opinion was an adverse factor in some cases but 48, or nearly all of the unsuccessful applicants in this sector, will be found to exceed one or both of the numerical criteria in guidelines 2 (a) and 2 (b). 9. The guidelines permitted us to make exceptions to the numerical criteria and an analysis of Report No. 3 will show that we did so in 21 cases. As regards guideline 2 (a), we understood the limited size of the unit to be a dominant characteristic of a successor parish, and we took the view, which we now confirm, that exceptions to the upper limit, as quantified in these guidelines, should be truly exceptional, both in the number of exceptions admitted and in the amount of the excess over the limit. Of the successor parishes with populations over 20,000 which we recommended in our Report No. 3, none exceeds 22,000 and all are situated in substantial districts and fit into a pattern, of existing parishes that are 'comparable in size and character' so that their case is supported by this criterion in guideline No. 1. We have examined the further representations to see if there are any special circumstances which warrant further exceptions being made and have concluded that there are two such cases. 10. We felt that there might be more scope for revision of our judgement in the application of the criterion in guideline 2 (b). The principle behind the guideline stands, ie that the object of a parish is to provide a local voice where that voice is too small to be effetively heard at district level, and that the need for the parish voice becomes less as the locality becomes more strongly repre- sented on the district council. But we found on our first review that the principle, when quantified as a one-fifth ratio, was unduly restrictive in its effect in small districts, where its strict application would have disqualified towns of as low as 6,000 or 7,000 population, and decided in such cases that exceptions producing a higher ratio might be allowed without infringing the principle. If. We have now considered whether there is room for latitude in the admission of exceptions to this criterion in larger non-metropolitan districts, where the population of the town is below or around the 20,000 mark and the town has satisfied the other criteria for a successor parish, and we have identified 15 such cases. 12. All the non-metropolitan district cases referred to above are listed below and we now recommend that they should be added to the towns to be given successor parish status. Name of Local authority area successor parish Barnstaple MB Barnstaple Bideford MB Bideford Bishop's Stortford UD Bishop's Stortford Chichester MB Chichester Clitheroe MB Clitheroe Falmouth MB Falmouth Felixstowe UD Felixstowe Harpenden UD Harpenden Kendal MB Kendal Kidsgrove UD Kidsgrove Newton Abbot UD Newton Abbot Skipton UD Skipton Tiverton MB Tiverton Trowbridge UD Trowbridge Truro MB Truro Winsford UD Winsford Wisbech MB Wisbech CONCLUSIONS 13. We wish lo stress that in making these proposals we have reached the limit to what we feel can properly be regarded as trie exceptional treatment of the criteria in the existing guidelines, and that a modification of the guidelines would be required before any further extensions could be considered by us. But we end this Report by expressing the hope that the guidelines will be allowed to stand, as providing a sound basis for an initial pattern of successor parishes. We repeat our belief that the way forward should not be sought by further review of the parish structure at this initial stage, but by the subsequent review procedure envisaged by Parliament in Section 48 (8) of the Act. EDMUND COMPTON Printed in England for Her Majesty's Stationery Office by Oyez Press Ltd. Dd. 505353 K72 11/73 HER MAJESTY'S STATIONERY OFFICE Government Bookshops 49 High Holborn, London WC1V 6HB 13a Castle Street, Edinburgh EH2 3AR 41 The Hayes, Cardiff CF1 UW Brazennose Street, Manchester M60 8AS Wine Street, Bristol BS1 2BQ 258 Broad Street, Birmingham Bl 2HE 80 Chichester Street, Belfast BT1 4JY Government publications are also available through booksellers ISBN 0 11 700705 6 ".
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Briefing Note For: Grantham Local Area Assembly
    BRIEFING NOTE FOR: GRANTHAM LOCAL AREA ASSEMBLY Subject: “A Town Council for Grantham” Agenda Item: 8 Date of Meeting: 7 th June 2006 Introduction This briefing paper includes a summary of the status of Parish/Town Councils, the implications of the Local Government Act 1972, background on Grantham’s Charter Trustees, the history of attempts to date to instate a Parish/Town Council in Grantham, information on the Local Government and Rating Act 1997, the Grantham referendum of 2002 and the powers of a Parish/Town Council. All Parish/Town Councils are funded by precepts that are included in the Council Tax. Background Parish/Town Councils The Parish Council is a body of civil government elected by the residents of the area. It has a wide range of statutory powers, which it is free to exercise or not as it wishes. In practice Parish Councils exercise sole responsibility for some matters and share responsibility for others with the District and County Councils. Were Grantham to be awarded Parish Council status, as a Parish Council in an urban area it would be entitled to call itself a Town Council. Changes to Local Government Grantham was a chartered borough for more than 500 years before 31 st March 1974, when the structure of Local Government was reorganised and District Councils were established under the Local Government Act 1972. Criteria for successor parish councils were established for areas with a population of less than 20,000 residents; Grantham had approximately 30,000 residents and was not eligible. Instead of successor Parish/Town Council, Charter Trustees for Grantham were established.
    [Show full text]
  • For Reference Only
    FOR REFERENCE ONLY FRANCIS CLOSE HALL LEARNING CENTRE UNIVERSITY OF GLOUCESTERSHIRE Swindon Road, Cheltenham GLSO 4AZ Tel: 01242 714600 VOLUNTEER - RUN MUSEUMS IN ENGLISH MARKET TOWNS AND VILLAGES BRIDGET ELIZABETH YATES A Thesis submitted to The University of Gloucestershire In accordance with the requirements of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy In the Faculty of Education, Humanities and Sciences December 2010 ABSTRACT VOLUNTEER-RUN MUSEUMS IN ENGLISH MARKET TOWNS AND VILLAGES Volunteer-run museums in English market towns and villages have been largely over-looked by scholars examining the history and development of museums in England, and work on contemporary museum volunteering or the relations of museums to their communities have not distinguished between volunteer-run and volunteer-involving museums. This thesis attempts to redress the balance by examining a number of volunteer-run museums in Dorset and the characteristics and motivations of the volunteers involved in their development. This element of the project included a survey of museum volunteers in the county and studies of a selected group of museums through interviews and through archival research in museum records. The thesis also presents a historical analysis, through a number of case histories, of the development of volunteer-run museums in English market towns and villages from 1884, demonstrating clearly how the development of these small museums reflects larger changes in the rural community from the paternalism of the late nineteenth century, through growing independence and democracy after 1918, to the counter­ urbanisation of the second half of the twentieth century. 1 Changing perceptions of rural identity are also apparent in the history of these museums.
    [Show full text]
  • Community Governance Review for Duddington with Fineshade – Draft Recommendations for Consultation
    Agenda Item 11 Council 23 July 2018 Community Governance Review for Duddington with Fineshade – Draft Recommendations for Consultation Purpose of report: To propose draft recommendations for parish arrangements in the parish of Duddington with Fineshade following the conclusion of the first stage of public consultation Attachment Appendix A – Map of proposed change to parish area from petitioners Appendix B – Original Terms of Reference for the Review. 1.0 Background 1.1 The receipt of a valid petition from a number of registered electors within the Fineshade area of the District requesting the separation of their area and formation of a new Parish Meeting was considered at the full council meeting of 29 January 2018. At its subsequent meeting of 26 February 2018 the Council approved a set of terms of reference and the formation of a review panel to consider the consultation responses, draft and final report prior to consideration by Council. 1.2 The request petition was signed by 86% of the electors in the proposed new parish area located within Fineshade. The proposed new Parish Meeting would comprise 7 properties with a current electorate of 14, although three properties are currently undergoing development/renovation and the electorate is expected to increase slightly as a result. (The total electorate for Duddington with Fineshade Parish council is currently 162.) 1.3 The review is a four stage process and Stage 1 (a period of open consultation) ended on 29 April 2018. Since then, officers have considered the proposals received. This paper sets out draft recommendations on proposed changes to parish arrangements together with a revised timetable for the latter stages of the review for consideration and approval by Council (see 1.5 and 1.6 below.) This revised timetable is necessary as the process of local government reorganisation and consultation, which has commenced within Northamptonshire since the terms of reference were approved, has impacted on the Council’s member and officer resources and ability to resource and run a separate Review Panel.
    [Show full text]
  • Council Minutes
    MINUTES OF THE COUNCIL OF THE BOROUGH OF HARROGATE HELD AT THE CIVIC CENTRE, HARROGATE ON WEDNESDAY, 6 MARCH 2019 (FROM 5.30 PM – 7.31 PM) PRESENT: Councillor Bernard Bateman, MBE in the Chair. Councillor Margaret Atkinson, Councillor Chris Aldred, Councillor Philip Broadbank, Councillor Nick Brown, Councillor Rebecca Burnett, Councillor Mike Chambers, MBE, Councillor Trevor Chapman, Councillor Jim Clark, Councillor Richard Cooper, Councillor Ed Darling, Councillor John Ennis, Councillor Michael Harrison, Councillor Paul Haslam, Councillor Sid Hawke, Councillor Phil Ireland, Councillor Steven Jackson, Councillor Sue Lumby, Councillor Stanley Lumley, Councillor John Mann, Councillor Pat Marsh, Councillor Stuart Martin, MBE, Councillor Pauline McHardy, Councillor Samantha Mearns, Councillor Zoe Metcalfe, Councillor Ann Myatt, Councillor Victoria Oldham, Councillor Alex Raubitschek, Councillor Matt Scott, Councillor Nigel Simms, Councillor Graham Swift, Councillor Norman Waller, Councillor Tom Watson, Councillor Matthew Webber, Councillor Christine Willoughby and Councillor Robert Windass. Late Arrivals: XXX Early Departures: XXX 76 – APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE: Apologies for absence had been received from Councillors Sam Gibbs, Nigel Middlemass, Tim Myatt and Andy Paraskos. 77 – URGENT BUSINESS: There was no urgent business. 78 – DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST: Councillor Rebecca Burnett declared an interest in respect of Minute 87/18(01) on the basis that she was employed by Transdev and left the room during the debate and vote on the item. 79 – EXEMPT INFORMATION: There was no exempt information. 80 – MINUTES: Moved by Councillor Richard Cooper Seconded by Councillor Graham Swift and RESOLVED: That the Minutes of the meeting of the Council held on 13 February 2019 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chair.
    [Show full text]
  • Final Report 1971-1992
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND FINAL REPORT 1971-1992 REPORT No 688 LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND FINAL REPORT 1971-1992 REPORT No 688 <D Crown copyright 1992 This material may be freely reproduced except for sale or advertising purposes. 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 Contents Section Page 1. INTRODUCTION '...... V 2. THE COMMISSION'S GENESIS 3 i 3. THE COMMISSION'S WORK, 1971-92 5 4. THE COMMISSION AND ITS ENVIRONMENT 21 5. PEOPLE AND PROCEDURES 25 6. THE SEARCH FOR GOOD BOUNDARIES 29 7. REFLECTIONS AND OBSERVATIONS 35 Annexes Page A. Commission Chairmen, Deputy Chairmen, Members and Secretaries 37 B. Commission reports 1. General reports 38 2. Initial Electoral Reviews ...39 3. Principal Area Boundary Reviews 52 4. Parish Reviews 56 5. Further Electoral Reviews 57 6 Mandatory Reviews of non-Metropolitan Counties, Metropolitan Districts and London Boroughs 58 7. Other publications 62 C. Main legislative provisions, annexed to Departmental Circulars, governing the Commission's operation 63 D. Review criteria 73 E. Secretary of State for the Environment's direction of 8 May 1984 74 Section 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 The Local Government Boundary Commission was formally set up in November 1972, although it had operated as a Commission-designate since November 1971. It is to be dissolved on 31 October 1992. 1.2 This final report seeks to set our Commission in its historical context; summarise its 21 years' work on administrative and electoral boundaries; discuss various important issues which have emerged during these 21 years; and finally proffer some reflections and observations which may be of particular concern to the new Local Government Commission, which will be taking over our remaining work, and which may also be of interest to the general reader.
    [Show full text]
  • Community Governance Reviews (England)
    Legal Topic Note LTN 73 July 2015 COMMUNITY GOVERNANCE REVIEWS (ENGLAND) Introduction 1. This Note looks at how community governance reviews (“CGRs”) can lead to the creation, abolition, alteration or grouping of parish councils. It contains information on: • DCLG guidance – paragraph 3 • when governance arrangements should be reviewed - paragraph 5 • community governance petitions - paragraph 7 • Community governance applications - paragraph 12 • CGR terms of reference - paragraph 14 • community governance petitions or community governance applications during CGRs - paragraph 16 • CGR time limits - paragraph 17 • factors relevant to CGRs - paragraph 18 • CGR Recommendations - paragraph 21 o new parishes - paragraph 22 o existing parishes - retention, alteration, abolition - paragraph 24 o grouping or de-grouping parishes - paragraph 32 o principal councils affected by CGR recommendations - paragraph 33 o new parish council - paragraph 34 o parish wards - paragraph 35 • publication - paragraph 40 • reorganisation orders - paragraph 41 • making agreements - paragraph 42 • financial arrangements - paragraph 43 2. A CGR is a review of local governance by a principal council (a district council, unitary county council or a London borough council) of the whole or part of its area. The CGR process is set out in the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 (“the 2007 Act”) [note: all references to sections in this Note are references to the 2007 Act unless otherwise stated] as amended by the Legislative National Association of Local Councils Tel: 020 7637 1865 Fax: 020 7436 7451 e-mail: [email protected] website: www.nalc.gov.uk LTN 73 Reform (Community Governance Reviews) Order 2015 (“the 2015 Order”). The 2015 Order made the following changes to the 2007 Act: • it reduced the number of signatures required for a valid community governance petitions (see paragraph 10) • it introduced a community governance application (see paragraph 12) • it reduced the time for completing a CGR (see paragraph17) DCLG guidance 3.
    [Show full text]
  • Local Government Act 1972
    Local Government Act 1972 I Hereby Give You Notice that an Ordinary Meeting of the Durham County Council will be held in the Council Chamber, County Hall, Durham on Wednesday 21 March 2012 at 10.00 am to transact the following business:- 1. Corporate Parenting Presentation 2. To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 22 February 2012 (Pages 1 - 10) 3. To receive any declarations of interest from Members 4. Chairman's Announcements 5. Leader's Report 6. Questions from the Public 7. Petitions • Broomsdene Waste Disposal Site 8. Report from the Cabinet (Pages 11 - 28) 9. Revision to Corporate Management Team - Report of Chief Executive (Pages 29 - 38) 10. Community Governance Reviews (Durham City and Crook) - Draft Recommendations - Report of Head of Legal and Democratic Services (Pages 39 - 380) 11. The Localism Act 2011 - The Amended Standards Regime - Report of Head of Legal and Democratic Services and Monitoring Officer (Pages 381 - 404) 12. Electoral Boundary Review - Consultation period in relation to representations published in response to the initial proposals for new Parliamentary Constituencies in Durham - Report of Corporate Director, Resources (Pages 405 - 412) 13. Local Code of Corporate Governance - Report of Corporate Director, Resources (Pages 413 - 434) 14. Motions on Notice 15. Questions from Members And pursuant to the provisions of the above-named act, I Hereby Summon You to attend the said meeting Dated this 13th day of March 2012 Colette Longbottom Head of Legal and Democratic Services To: All Members of the County
    [Show full text]
  • Local Government Boundary Commission for England
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND REPORT No. 3 LONDON HER MAJESTY'S STATIONERY OFFICE 1973 18p net LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND REPORT No. 3 LONDON HER MAJESTY'S STATIONERY OFFICE 1973 © Crown copyright 1973 SBN 11 700499 5 LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND CHAIRMAN Sir Edmund Compton, GCB, K.BE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN < Mr J M Rankin,QC MEMBERS The Countess of Albemarle, DBE Mr T C Benfield Professor Michael Chisholm Sir Andrew Wheatiey, CBE Mr F B Young, CBE in To the Rt Hon Geoffrey'Rippon QC MP Secretary of State for the Environment 1. We, the Local Government Boundary Commission for England, present our Report No 3 containing our proposals for the constitution of parishes the boundaries of which are determined by reference to those of existing urban dis- tricts and boroughs and also in certain cases by reference to the boundaries of the new districts. The report also includes our proposals for naming these parishes. 2. The statutory provisions relating to the constitution of these parishes are contained in section 1(8) and Part V of Schedule 1 to the Local Government Act 1972. Under paragraph 1 of that Schedule we were required to "consult the councils of existing counties, boroughs and urban districts and the committees established under section 264 (1) (b) with a view to making proposals to the Secretary of State for the constitution of parishes each of which has a boundary coterminous with that of— (a) an existing urban district or borough, the area of which is not divided by or under Section I above between two or more districts, or (b) so much of an existing urban district or borough, the area of which is so divided, as is wholly comprised in a single district, and for naming those parishes." We now present our proposals for the constitution of such parishes and for naming them.
    [Show full text]
  • Guidance on Community Governance Reviews
    Guidance on community governance reviews April 2008 Department for Communities and Local Government The Electoral Commission CONTENTS Page FOREWORD 4 1. INTRODUCTION 5 The Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 and 5 community governance reviews Aim of this guidance 5 Issues covered in this guidance 6 Statutory provisions 6 Structure of Guidance 7 Further information 7 2. UNDERTAKING COMMUNITY GOVERNANCE REVIEWS 8 Why undertake a community governance review? 8 Terms of reference for community governance reviews 9 Timing of community governance reviews 10 Undertaking community governance reviews 11 Public petitions to trigger community governance reviews 12 3. MAKING AND IMPLEMENTING RECOMMENDATIONS MADE IN 14 COMMUNITY GOVERNANCE REVIEWS Context of parishes in the wider community 14 Defining a parish 14 Criteria for undertaking a community governance review: 15 - The identities and interests of local communities 15 - Effective and convenient local government 16 Factors for consideration 17 - The impact on community cohesion of community governance 17 arrangements - Size, population and boundaries of a local community or 18 parish Parish meetings and parish councils 20 Recommendations and decisions on the outcome of community 20 governance reviews Implementation of community governance reviews by order 22 Maps of parish changes and mapping conventions 23 2 4. OTHER ASPECTS OF COMMUNITY GOVERNANCE REVIEWS 24 Parish names and alternative styles for parishes 24 Grouping or degrouping parishes 25 Abolishing
    [Show full text]
  • Agenda Reports Pack (Public) 19/01/2011, 15:00
    BROMSGROVE DISTRICT COUNCIL MEETING OF THE CABINET WEDNESDAY 19TH JANUARY 2011 AT 3.00 P.M. THE COUNCIL HOUSE, BURCOT LANE, BROMSGROVE MEMBERS: Councillors R. Hollingworth (Chairman), G. N. Denaro (Vice- Chairman), Dr. D. W. P. Booth JP, Mrs. J. Dyer M.B.E., Mrs. M. A. Sherrey JP, R. D. Smith, M. J. A. Webb and P. J. Whittaker AGENDA 1. To receive apologies for absence 2. Declarations of Interest 3. Draft Core Strategy 2 (Pages 1 - 8) 4. Town Centre Draft Area Action Plan (Pages 9 - 16) 5. Consultation on Local Transport Plan (Pages 17 - 22) 6. Bromsgrove Leisure Centre Options Appraisal (To follow) 7. The Marketing of Bromsgrove (Pages 23 - 28) 8. Review of Lickey End Parish Council - Use of Funds (Pages 29 - 36) • Appendix For Item 3 - Draft Core Strategy 2 (Pages 37 - 146) • Appendix For Item 4 - Town Centre Draft Area Action Plan (Pages 147 - 248) • Appendix For Item 5 - Consultation On Local Transport Plan (Pages 249 - 256) - 1 - 9. To consider any other business, details of which have been notified to the Head of Legal, Equalities and Democratic Services prior to the commencement of the meeting and which the Chairman, by reason of special circumstances, considers to be of so urgent a nature that it cannot wait until the next meeting 10. To consider, and if considered appropriate, to pass the following resolution to exclude the public from the meeting during the consideration of item(s) of business containing exempt information:- "RESOLVED : that under Section 100 I of the Local Government Act 1972, as amended, the public be excluded from the meeting during the consideration of the following items of business on the grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Part I of Schedule 12A to the Act, as amended, the relevant paragraph of that part, in each case, being as set out below, and that it is in the public interest to do so:- Item No.
    [Show full text]
  • Agenda Reports Pack (Public) 05/01/2011, 18:00
    BROMSGROVE DISTRICT COUNCIL MEETING OF THE CABINET WEDNESDAY 5TH JANUARY 2011 AT 6.00 P.M. THE COUNCIL HOUSE, BURCOT LANE, BROMSGROVE MEMBERS: Councillors R. Hollingworth (Chairman), G. N. Denaro (Vice- Chairman), Dr. D. W. P. Booth JP, Mrs. J. Dyer M.B.E., Mrs. M. A. Sherrey JP, R. D. Smith, M. J. A. Webb and P. J. Whittaker AGENDA 1. Apologies 2. Declarations of Interest 3. Minutes (Pages 1 - 4) 4. Joint Overview and Scrutiny Board (Pages 5 - 8) (a) To receive and note the minutes (b) To consider any recommendations contained within the minutes 5. North Worcestershire Joint Committee (Pages 9 - 18) (a) To receive and note the minutes (b) To consider any recommendations contained within the minutes 6. Shared Services Board (Pages 19 - 22) (a) To receive and note the minutes (b) To consider any recommendations contained within the minutes - 1 - 7. Audit Board (Pages 23 - 28) (a) To receive and note the minutes (b) To consider any recommendations contained within the minutes 8. Verbal updates from the Leader and/or other Cabinet Members on any recent meetings attended in an ex-officio capacity (Pages 29 - 30) 9. Medium Term Financial Plan 2011/2012 - 2013/2014 (Pages 31 - 38) 10. Customer Experience Strategy (Pages 39 - 66) 11. Bromsgrove Partnership's Annual Report (Pages 67 - 72) 12. Review of Lickey End Parish Council - Use of Funds (Pages 73 - 80) 13. Longbridge - Memorandum of Understanding (Pages 81 - 86) 14. The Marketing of Bromsgrove (Pages 87 - 92) § Appendices For Item 9 - Medium Term Financial Plan 2011/2012 - 2013/2014 (Pages 93 - 98) § Appendix For Item 10 - Customer Experience Strategy (Pages 99 - 120) § Appendix For Item 11 - Bromsgrove Partnership Annual Report (Pages 121 - 132) § Appendices For Item 13 - Longbridge Memorandum of Understanding (Pages 133 - 162) 15.
    [Show full text]
  • Council Minutes
    MINUTES OF THE COUNCIL OF THE BOROUGH OF HARROGATE HELD AT THE CIVIC CENTRE, HARROGATE ON WEDNESDAY, 4 MARCH 2020 (FROM TIME NOT SPECIFIED – TIME NOT SPECIFIED) PRESENT: Councillor Stuart Martin, MBE in the Chair. Councillor Zoe Metcalfe, Councillor Chris Aldred, Councillor Margaret Atkinson, Councillor Bernard Bateman, MBE, Councillor Philip Broadbank, Councillor Nick Brown, Councillor Rebecca Burnett, Councillor Mike Chambers, MBE, Councillor Trevor Chapman, Councillor Jim Clark, Councillor Richard Cooper, Councillor Ed Darling, Councillor John Ennis, Councillor Sam Gibbs, Councillor Michael Harrison, Councillor Paul Haslam, Councillor Sid Hawke, Councillor Phil Ireland, Councillor Steven Jackson, Councillor Sue Lumby, Councillor Stanley Lumley, Councillor John Mann, Councillor Pat Marsh, Councillor Pauline McHardy, Councillor Samantha Mearns, Councillor Nigel Middlemass, Councillor Ann Myatt, Councillor Tim Myatt, Councillor Victoria Oldham, Councillor Andrew Paraskos, Councillor Alex Raubitschek, Councillor Matt Scott, Councillor Nigel Simms, Councillor Graham Swift, Councillor Norman Waller, Councillor Tom Watson, Councillor Matthew Webber, Councillor Christine Willoughby and Councillor Robert Windass. Late Arrivals: XXX Early Departures: XXX 74 – APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE: There were no apologies for absence. 75 – URGENT BUSINESS: There was no urgent business. 76 – DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST: Members were advised back when the publication draft local plan was considered and were reminded now, that a Council’s interest in land (be it County, District or any Parish Council’s interest in land) was not a relevant consideration to any decision as to whether the land should be allocated in the local plan. Local authorities owned significant areas of land, and it was not unreasonable that some of that land or land in which an authority has an interest would be proposed for development.
    [Show full text]