DOCSLIB.ORG

LGBCE FOI 21605.Pdf

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
LGBCE FOI 21605.Pdf Hendry, Angela From: Hendry, Angela Sent: 02 August 2019 14:44 To: Subject: Response to FOI request Attachments: FOI response pack.pdf Dear FOI Ref: 21605/19 Thank you for your request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 which we received on 08/07/2019. You requested: In relation to The Rotherham (Electoral Changes) Order 2018, please provide copies of all correspondence, between yourselves and Rotherham MBC up until 31May 2019. Also, please supply copies of all associated documentation, internal correspondence, etc. which were generated by LGBCE in relation to the above Order. The information attached reproduces e-mails and letters sent between the Commission and Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council, together with the Council’s formal submissions relating to the review between July 2016 and July 2018. Items marked as attachments are documents attached to e-mails. Where there is more than one communication sent by either the Commission or the Council on one day, this is denoted by numbered brackets after the communication date. If you have any further queries, please do not hesitate to contact me, quoting the reference number above in any correspondence. If you wish to request a review of our decision, you should write to: Lynn Ingram Director of Finance & Resources Local Government Boundary Commission for England 1st Floor Windsor House 50 Victoria Street London SW1H 0TL Kind regards Angela Angela Hendry Office Manager and HR Lead 1st Floor, Windsor House 50 Victoria Street London SW1H 0TL 1 0330 500 1264 _ _ How are we doing? Click here to give us your views. 2 Owen, David From: Owen, David Sent: 04 July 2016 14:53 To: Moran, James Subject: RE: Electoral review of Rotherham Hi James Thanks for your message First an update Tim is no longer with us. He has moved on to greener pastures I am taking on the Review Officer role for the Rotherham review. I’ll be doing the day‐to‐day stuff …..and now….. ArcMap shapefiles (polygons) would be perfect Thanks David From: Moran, James [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 04 July 2016 14:10 To: Bowden, Tim <[email protected]> Cc: Wardle, Claire <[email protected]>; Owen, David <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Electoral review of Rotherham Hi Tim, I have asked our GIS team for mapping data, but they have asked us to specify what format is required. Could you let me know this please? Many thanks James Moran AEA (Cert). Senior Electoral Services Officer Electoral Services Finance and Corporate Services Directorate Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council Tel: 01709 823539 Fax: 01709 367343 [email protected] www.rotherham.gov.uk/elections Postal address: Riverside House, Main Street, Rotherham S60 1AE Personal callers please note that the Electoral Services Office is located in Bailey House, Rawmarsh Road, Rotherham S60 1TD Before printing, think about the environment. 1 From: Bowden, Tim [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 26 January 2016 13:49 To: Wardle, Claire Cc: Owen, David Subject: RE: Electoral review of Rotherham Hi Claire Thanks for your time on the phone yesterday. As discussed, I promised I would follow‐up with an email of information required and meetings to arrange. Meetings All member briefing ‐ 1 hour is normally allocated for the briefing. This is normally made up of a 10 minute presentation with the rest of the time for Q&A. This gives the Commission the chance to explain the review to all members. Some authorities like holding these before a council meeting and some prefer keeping it completely separate. Group Leaders briefing ‐ 45 minutes is normally allocated for this session. This gives the chance for the Lead Commissioner to meet and have a more informal conversation on the review with the Group Leaders. Ideally, it would be good to hold this on the same day as the member briefing ‐ beforehand is better. Officer briefing ‐ can last anywhere from 1 to 2 hours. During this session I will run through the review is detail and answer any questions. I can do this on the same day as the member briefing or sooner if you wished. We can have the meetings after the election, I would just suggest we get a date and time agreed. Information This information is requested for any electoral review: Current and forecast electorate figures for 2022 ‐ broken down by polling district and collated using the following spreadsheet ‐ http://www.lgbce.org.uk/__data/assets/excel_doc/0012/10407/proforma‐for‐electoral‐ arrangements.xls Details of electorate forecasting methodology ‐ we have produced some guidance on compiling electorate forecasts which can be found here ‐ http://www.lgbce.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0017/10394/electorate‐forecasts‐ guidance‐2012.pdf. As I mentioned yesterday on the phone we might be able to assist in pulling together a first cut of electorate forecasts, to do this we will need a copy of the electoral register. Details of parishes and parish warding arrangements ‐ i.e. number of parish councillors elected to each parish council, the number from each parish ward etc. Electronic copy of most recent electoral register in Microsoft Excel format. A Geo‐coded copy of the electoral register ‐ this is a mapped copy of the register. I suggest establishing what GIS expertise you have at the Council GIS mapping data for polling districts across the district. Contact details for residents associations and community groups for consultation purposes, in Microsoft Excel format ‐ this is so we can write to these groups when we launch each consultation Local press and media contacts We will require some other information but this is a good start. We have some detailed guidance on reviews which can be found here ‐ http://www.lgbce.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/10410/technical‐guidance‐2014.pdf. In terms of when we will want this information it will not be until August/September 2016, but it’s a good idea to get a head start. As I mentioned yesterday, it's also worth doing so preparatory work on council size as the Commission will be asking the Council for a submission on what it thinks is an appropriate number of councillors for Rotherham. Page 41 of the 2 technical guidance lays out in some detail what you should think about on council size. We will also be asking for submissions on council size by August/September 2016. Hope this is helpful. As I said yesterday we are regularly undertaking reviews and can provide advice throughout. I will be managing the review of Rotherham and the lead officer will be David Owen ‐ I have copied David into this email. Kind regards Tim Tim Bowden Review Manager Local Government Boundary Commission for England 14th Floor Millbank Tower Millbank London, SW1P 4QP Tel: 0330 500 1270 www.lgbce.org.uk It would help us if you would take a few minutes to answer a few questions about your experience of how we dealt with you. How are we doing? ‐ Click on this link to give us your views The information in this e-mail is confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it was addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, be advised that you have received this e-mail in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please advise the sender by using the reply facility in your e-mail software, and then delete it from your system. Rotherham MBC may monitor the content of the e-mails sent and received via its network for the purposes of ensuring compliance with the law and with RMBC policies. Any views or opinions presented are only those of the author and not those of Rotherham MBC.The copyright in all documentation is the property of Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council and this email and any documentation must not be copied or used other than as strictly necessary for the purpose of this email, without prior written consent which may be subject to conditions. 3 Owen, David From: Owen, David Sent: 06 July 2016 15:03 To: [email protected] Cc: Buck, Richard Subject: Rotherham Electoral Review Dear Claire As you probably know, we have been talking to Lesley Hatton about dates when the Lead Commissioner Dr Peter Knight, Richard Buck (review manager) and I (review officer) can come to talk to the Chief Executive, Group Leaders and Councillors about the review. We seem to be homing in on Friday 15 July, but that isn’t a dead certainty yet. We also like to do a session with officers on the nuts and bolts of a review ‐ essentially the people that are actually going to be doing the work. This would be Richard and I. This doesn’t have to be on the same day, it can be sooner than 15th or later, although Lesley tells me that you are going on leave on 19th. Before you go would I think be good, so that those who might need to do things can be getting on with them. We’ll cover the review process, timetable and the information we will need from you including electorate forecasts. The list of information we need is included in our guidance at https://www.lgbce.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/10410/technical‐guidance‐2014.pdf page 29. With us deciding on council size in October, we’ll need to get our information needs met before then. Richard and I have pretty good capacity at the moment to come when it suits you, so perhaps you could give some thought to when it would be good for us to have a session, and which of your colleagues you would like to involve.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Barron V Collins 2017 EWHC 162 (QC)
    Neutral Citation Number: [2017] EWHC 162 (QB) Case No: HQ14D04882 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London, WC2A 2LL Date: 06/02/2017 Before: MR JUSTICE WARBY - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Between: (1) SIR KEVIN BARRON MP Claimant (2) RT HON JOHN HEALEY MP (3) SARAH CHAMPION - and - JANE COLLINS MEP Defendant - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Gavin Millar QC and Sara Mansoori (instructed by Steel & Shamash) for the Claimants The defendant did not appear, but Mr Mick Burchill was permitted to make representations on her behalf. Hearing date: 31st January 2017 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Judgment Approved by the court for handing down (subject to editorial corrections) If this Judgment has been emailed to you it is to be treated as ‘read-only’. You should send any suggested amendments as a separate Word document. Judgment Approved by the court for handing down Barron v Collins [2017] EWHC 162 (QB) (subject to editorial corrections) Mr Justice Warby : 1. This has been a hearing to assess compensation pursuant to the Defamation Act 1996, following the claimants’ acceptance of an offer of amends. BACKGROUND 2. The three claimants, Sir Kevin Barron, Rt. Hon. John Healey, and Sarah Champion, are all Labour Party MPs for constituencies in and around Rotherham, Yorkshire. The defendant, Ms Collins, is the MEP for Yorkshire, a member of the UK Independence Party. The claim arises from a speech made by Ms Collins at the UKIP Party Conference on 26 September 2014. The speech was broadcast live on the BBC Parliament channel, and republished in whole or in part on the UKIP website, Twitter, and the Press Association Mediapoint wire service.
    [Show full text]
  • Conduct of Ms Emily Thornberry
    House of Commons Committee on Standards and Privileges Conduct of Ms Emily Thornberry Eleventh Report of Session 2005–06 Report and Appendix, together with formal minutes Ordered by The House of Commons to be printed 27 June 2006 HC 1367 Published on 28 June 2006 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited £0.00 The Committee on Standards & Privileges The Committee on Standards and Privileges is appointed by the House of Commons to oversee the work of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards; to examine the arrangements proposed by the Commissioner for the compilation, maintenance and accessibility of the Register of Members’ Interests and any other registers of interest established by the House; to review from time to time the form and content of those registers; to consider any specific complaints made in relation to the registering or declaring of interests referred to it by the Commissioner; to consider any matter relating to the conduct of Members, including specific complaints in relation to alleged breaches in the Code of Conduct which have been drawn to the Committee’s attention by the Commissioner; and to recommend any modifications to the Code of Conduct as may from time to time appear to be necessary. Current membership Rt Hon Sir George Young Bt MP (Conservative, North West Hampshire) (Chairman) Rt Hon Kevin Barron MP (Labour, Rother Valley) Rt Hon David Curry MP (Conservative, Skipton & Ripon) Mr Andrew Dismore MP (Labour, Hendon) Nick Harvey MP (Liberal Democrat, North Devon) Mr Brian Jenkins MP (Labour, Tamworth) Mr Elfyn Llwyd MP (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy) Mr Chris Mullin MP (Labour, Sunderland South) The Hon Nicholas Soames MP (Conservative, Mid Sussex) Dr Alan Whitehead MP (Labour, Southampton Test) Powers The constitution and powers of the Committee are set out in Standing Order No.
    [Show full text]
  • 20150622 Sheffield UTC
    Impact Assessment – UTC Sheffield (Human Sciences and Digital Technologies UTC) Secondary Schools: Number of Surplus at Distance Capacity Surplus point of Attainment Inspection Inspection School name Type from UTC (May Impact Rating Places entry 2014 Rating Date (miles) 2013) (May 2013) (Jan 2014) Fir Vale School Academy Requires 1.1 1050 121 62 36% 11-Jul-2013 High Academy Trust Converter Improvement Hinde House 3-16 Academy 1.5 1320 134 0 42% Good 8-Nov-2012 Moderate School Converter Sheffield Park Academy 1.7 1300 402 41 64% Good 5-Jun-2013 Moderate Academy Sponsor Led Brinsworth Academy Comprehensive 2.1 1487 144 13 64% Good 14-Jun-2012 Moderate Converter School Firth Park Academy 2.1 1350 298 38 40% No Ofsted grade No Ofsted grade Moderate Academy Sponsor Led All Saints' Academy Catholic High 2.2 1290 -96 -1 54% Good 7-Mar-2014 Minimal Converter School University No KS4 UTC Sheffield Technical 2.4 600 394 11 No Ofsted grade No Ofsted grade Too early to assess data College Parkwood Academy 2.6 900 151 34 51% Good 30-Jan-2014 Moderate Academy Sponsor Led Foundation School Winterhill School (Pipeline 2.7 1577 365 83 59% Good 30-Jan-2013 Moderate academy converter) Sheffield Springs Academy Requires 2.8 1300 347 43 36% 1-Oct-2014 High Academy Sponsor Led Improvement Community Handsworth School Grange (Pipeline 3.0 1025 17 4 58% Good 24-May-2012 Minimal Community academy Sports College converter) Outwood Academy 3.1 1200 245 47 54% No Ofsted grade No Ofsted grade Moderate Academy City Sponsor Led Academy Requires Chaucer School 3.2 900 92 28 29% 25-Jun-2014 High Sponsor Led Improvement King Edward VII Community Requires 3.2 1649 -96 -3 62% 19-Apr-2013 Minimal School School Improvement Yewlands Academy Technology 3.6 900 48 21 49% Inadequate 12-Mar-2014 Moderate Converter College Summary Within the local area of the proposed UTC, it is expected that only three schools may feel a high impact, eight may feel a moderate impact and three schools may feel a minimal impact.
    [Show full text]
  • Use of Contextual Data at the University of Warwick Please Use
    Use of contextual data at the University of Warwick Please use the table below to check whether your school meets the eligibility criteria for a contextual offer. For more information about our contextual offer please visit our website or contact the Undergraduate Admissions Team. School Name School Postcode School Performance Free School Meals 'Y' indicates a school which meets the 'Y' indicates a school which meets the Free School Meal criteria. Schools are listed in alphabetical order. school performance citeria. 'N/A' indicates a school for which the data is not available. 6th Form at Swakeleys UB10 0EJ N Y Abbey College, Ramsey PE26 1DG Y N Abbey Court Community Special School ME2 3SP N Y Abbey Grange Church of England Academy LS16 5EA Y N Abbey Hill School and Performing Arts College ST2 8LG Y Y Abbey Hill School and Technology College, Stockton TS19 8BU Y Y Abbey School, Faversham ME13 8RZ Y Y Abbeyfield School, Northampton NN4 8BU Y Y Abbeywood Community School BS34 8SF Y N Abbot Beyne School and Arts College, Burton Upon Trent DE15 0JL Y Y Abbot's Lea School, Liverpool L25 6EE Y Y Abbotsfield School UB10 0EX Y N Abbotsfield School, Uxbridge UB10 0EX Y N School Name School Postcode School Performance Free School Meals Abbs Cross School and Arts College RM12 4YQ Y N Abbs Cross School, Hornchurch RM12 4YB Y N Abingdon And Witney College OX14 1GG Y NA Abraham Darby Academy TF7 5HX Y Y Abraham Guest Academy WN5 0DQ Y Y Abraham Moss High School, Manchester M8 5UF Y Y Academy 360 SR4 9BA Y Y Accrington Academy BB5 4FF Y Y Acklam Grange
    [Show full text]
  • List of Yorkshire and Humber Schools
    List of Yorkshire and Humber Schools This document outlines the academic and social criteria you need to meet depending on your current secondary school in order to be eligible to apply. For APP City/Employer Insights: If your school has ‘FSM’ in the Social Criteria column, then you must have been eligible for Free School Meals at any point during your secondary schooling. If your school has ‘FSM or FG’ in the Social Criteria column, then you must have been eligible for Free School Meals at any point during your secondary schooling or be among the first generation in your family to attend university. For APP Reach: Applicants need to have achieved at least 5 9-5 (A*-C) GCSES and be eligible for free school meals OR first generation to university (regardless of school attended) Exceptions for the academic and social criteria can be made on a case-by-case basis for children in care or those with extenuating circumstances. Please refer to socialmobility.org.uk/criteria-programmes for more details. If your school is not on the list below, or you believe it has been wrongly categorised, or you have any other questions please contact the Social Mobility Foundation via telephone on 0207 183 1189 between 9am – 5:30pm Monday to Friday. School or College Name Local Authority Academic Criteria Social Criteria Abbey Grange Church of England Academy Leeds 5 7s or As at GCSE FSM Airedale Academy Wakefield 4 7s or As at GCSE FSM or FG All Saints Catholic College Specialist in Humanities Kirklees 4 7s or As at GCSE FSM or FG All Saints' Catholic High
    [Show full text]
  • Planning Statement Addendum 9
    9. Planning Statement Addendum Land adjacent to Dinnington Road, Woodsetts Construction of a well site and creation of a new access track, mobilisation of drilling, ancillary equipment and contractor welfare facilities to drill and pressure transient test a vertical hydrocarbon exploratory core well and mobilisation of workover rig, listening well operations, and retention of the site and wellhead assembly gear for a temporary period of 5 years on land adjacent to Dinnington Road, Woodsetts, Rotherham. June 2018 Planning Application Addendum Construction of a well site and creation of a new access track, mobilisation of drilling, ancillary equipment and contractor welfare facilities to drill and pressure transient test a vertical hydrocarbon exploratory core well and mobilisation of workover rig, listening well operations, and retention of the site and wellhead assembly gear for a temporary period of 5 years on land adjacent to Dinnington Road, Woodsetts, Rotherham. PEDL304 June 2018 PEDL304 June 2018 Contents 1. Introduction 1 2. Documents submitted during the application process 5 3. New information to address Reasons for Refusal 8 4. Overview and Conclusions 9 Appendix 1: Officers Report to Board 10 Appendix 2: Minutes of Board meeting 11 Appendix 3: Decision Notice 12 Appendix 4: Appeal Decision 13 Appendix 5: Letter to Highways England 21 December 2017 14 Appendix 6: Letter to RMBC Highways 21 December 2017 15 Appendix 7: Letter to RMBC Planning 21 December 2017 16 Appendix 8: Email response on Drainage matters 3 January 2018 17 Appendix 9: Letter to RMBC Planning 15 January 2018 18 Appendix 10: Swept Path analysis M1, J31, 16 January 2018 19 Appendix 11: Letter to RMBC Planning 23 January 2017 20 Appendix 12: Archaeological Evaluation Report January 2018 21 Appendix 13: Letter to RMBC Planning 8 February 2018 22 Appendix 14: Breeding Bird Survey 23 Appendix 15: Public Consultation Materials 24 Contact Matthew Sheppard [email protected] 13 Jun 2018 1.
    [Show full text]
  • A Study in Political Complexity
    THE UNIVERSITY OF SHEFFIELD A.LENT LABOUR'S TRANSFORMATION 1983 -1989: A STUDY IN POLITICAL COMPLEXITY THESIS SUBMITTED FOR THE DEGREE Of PhD. 1997 (/ (., "", './1",' . ";~j'- i LABOUR'S TRANSFORMATION 1983 -1989: A STUDY IN POLITICAL COMPLEXITY ADAM LENT THESIS SUBMITTED FOR TilE DEGREE OF PhD. DEPARTl\IENT OF POLITICS SHEFFIELD UNIVERSITY AUGUST 1997 ii CONTENTS Acknowledgements III Abstract v A Note on References VII 1. Introduction 1 PART I: COMPLEXITY AND POLITICS 2. Towards Complexity in Political Analysis 14 3. Complexity and Analysis of Labour in the 1980s 77 PART n: LABOUR'S TRANSFORMATION 1983-1989 4. The Early Days of the Leadership 126 5. The Miners, Militant and the Rates 184 6. Organisational Change 232 7. The New Agenda 270 8. Election Defeat and Leadership Challenge 311 9. Policy Reform and the New Establishment 354 10. Conclusion: Acknowledging Simplification 400 References. 424 iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank: the following for their help, support and advice regarding this thesis: Tim Bale, Iulian Bass, David Blunkett, Roger Charlton, Andrew Chipperfield, David Donald, Daniel Fox, Andrew Gamble, Stephen George, Alan Haworth, Bill Hughes, Tim Jordan, Mike Kenny, Sheena MacKenzie, Hugh McLachlan, Patrick Seyd, Eric Shaw, Martin Smith, Gary Taylor and to all those who attended and contributed to seminars at which I presented papers based on this thesis. The libraries used in this research were as follows: Sheffield University Library; Sheffield Hallam University Library; Sheffield City Library; the library at The Museum of Labour History; Glasgow Caledonian University Library; the British Library of Political and Economic Science; and the newspapers and periodicals branch of the British Library.
    [Show full text]
  • Admission to Secondary School Booklet 2018/19
    Admission to Secondary School 2018–2019 Apply online by 13 November 2017 www.rotherham.gov.uk/schools Apply by post Closing Date 30 November 2017 Telephone 01709 823777 to request an application form www.rotherham.gov.uk/schools Letter from the Strategic Director for Children and Young People’s Services Dear Parent(s)/Carer(s) The Education of Children and Young People is a Key priority in Rotherham. We aim to give your child the best possible learning opportunities and work with you as partners in your child’s learning. Moving on to secondary school is an important and exciting step in the life of any child, along what we hope will be the Lifelong Learning Road. I hope that this booklet will provide a clear explanation of the procedures to be followed at this important point of transition. It also shows how you as parent(s) or carer(s) can be involved, to ensure that your child has a happy and successful transfer to secondary school in September 2018.The booklet summarises the Local Authority and Schools policies on the allocation of secondary school places. It also refers to some of the other policies which may affect your child, either immediately or at some time in the secondary education phase. I hope this booklet will assist you and remove any uncertainty about the transfer. If you need further advice, staff in both primary and secondary schools and of course, staff in Children and Young People’s Services will do all they can to help ensure a smooth transfer for your child in September 2018.
    [Show full text]
  • The Anne Frank Trust UK Realising Ambition Report 1
    The Anne Frank Trust UK Realising Ambition Report 1 THE ANNE FRANK TRUST UK REALISING AMBITION REPORT A Realising Ambition Report The Anne Frank Trust UK THE ANNE FRANK TRUST: 2 WHO WE ARE AND WHAT WE DO 24 EVALUATIONS CONDUCTED EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3 28 KNOWLEDGE OUR PROGRAMME 4 30 SKILLS 5 OUR REACH 33 CONFIDENCE WHY WE CHOSE OUR 6 REPLICATION AREAS 36 ATTITUDES SUPPORT FROM 10 THE CONSORTIUM LESSONS LEARNT FROM 40 EVALUATING IMPACT 13 OUR HEALTH CONTENTS CONTENTS CONCLUSION 16 REPLICATION 42 OUR STRATEGIC PLANS 20 MEASURING IMPACT 43 22 METHODOLOGY 44 THANK YOU 2 Realising Ambition Report The Anne Frank Trust UK The Anne Frank Trust UK Realising Ambition Report 3 THE ANNE EXECUTIVE FRANK TRUST UK SUMMARY “Every child has the potential to succeed in life but each year thousands of young people across the UK enter the Who we are and what we do criminal justice system for the first time.” – Big Lottery “In Realising Ambition the Big Lottery Fund has invested base has allowed us to monitor the quality of our service [in] projects, such as the Anne Frank Schools and and ensured that we have the intended impact on our Ambassadors programme, which have already proven programme’s beneficiaries; increasing their positive and OUR VISION their effectiveness in diverting young people from pro-social behaviour whilst reducing negative attitudes. pathways into crime so they can fulfil their true potential.” This report details the journey that our organisation – Big Lottery has undertaken during this period and the fundamental A society safe from prejudice and discrimination The Big Lottery Fund provided £25 million under lessons that have been learnt as a result of this process.
    [Show full text]
  • Offers in the Region of £400,000 NETHERTHORPE HOUSE
    HEADER Description NETHERTHORPE HOUSE, Netherthorpe Offers in the Region of £400,000 Address NETHERTHORPE HOUSE, Netherthorpe, Worksop, LOCATION ENTRANCE HALL with principal staircase to first floor, galleried Nottinghamshire, S80 3JQ landing over, under stairs storage cupboard, corniced ceiling, radiator. Netherthorpe House is situated in a small cluster of d wellings DESCRIPTION forming Netherthorpe. Netherthorpe aerodrome (the home of Sheffield Aero Club) lies within this largely agricultural hamlet. A rare opportunity to acq uire a substantial residence of Georgian The Hamlet lies on the west side of Worksop in the and Victorian origins set within mature grounds in all extending to Nottinghamshire / South Yorkshire / Derbyshire border area. approximately 2.28 acres (subject to measured site survey) and Worksop is bypassed by the A57 which is a few minutes’ drive offering potential for modernisation and refurbishment. away and this allows linkage to an excellent road network Purchasers therefore have the chance to carry out a including the M1 and A1, making Sheffield and South Yorkshire modernisation scheme to their own tastes and specification, conurbations in general easily commutable. From the adjacent delivering a fine family home. village of Shireoaks there is a frequent rail service - north into Sheffield and Doncaster and south to Retford all linking with direct The majority of the grounds are private woodland of an services into London. unmanaged arboretum nature and were the passion of the current family owners who have been in residence for the last fifty years International air travel is available from Doncaster Sheffield and or so. Substantially landscaped in the past, the grounds require Nottingham East Midlands Airport some attention but the potential for rejuvenation can be seen.
    [Show full text]
  • Shireoaks Neighbourhood Development Plan 2015-2028
    Shireoaks Neighbourhood Development Plan – Consultation Statement 2015-2028 Shireoaks Neighbourhood Development Plan 2015-2028 Consultation Statement SHIREOAKS PARISH COUNCIL 1 Shireoaks Neighbourhood Development Plan – Consultation Statement 2015-2028 2 Shireoaks Neighbourhood Development Plan – Consultation Statement 2015-2028 Contents 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 4 What is the Shireoaks Neighbourhood Plan?............................................................................... 4 What is the Consultation Statement? .......................................................................................... 5 2 Methodology ................................................................................................................................. 6 3 Responses ...................................................................................................................................... 8 Local Residents Comments .......................................................................................................... 8 Key Contacts Responses ............................................................................................................... 8 4 Amendments to the Neighbourhood Plan ................................................................................. 21 3 Shireoaks Neighbourhood Development Plan – Consultation Statement 2015-2028 1 Introduction What is the Shireoaks Neighbourhood Plan?
    [Show full text]
  • Sheffield, Doncaster, Bassetlaw
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND REVIEW OF SOUTH YORKSHIRE THE METROPOLITAN BOROUGH OF ROTHERHAM Boundaries with: SHEFFIELD DONCASTER BASSETLAW BOLSOVER N. E. DERBYSHIRE BARNSLEY DONCASTER SHEFFIELD \ ^ ? BASSETLAW N. E. DERBYSHIRE BOLSOVER REPORT NO. 670 LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND REPORT NO 670 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 SOUTH YORKSHIRE THE METROPOLITAN BOROUGH OF ROTHERHAM AND ITS BOUNDARIES WITH THE CITY OF SHEFFIELD, THE METROPOLITAN BOROUGH OF DONCASTER, THE DISTRICT OF BASSETLAW IN NOTTINGHAMSHIRE AND THE DISTRICTS OF 'BOLSOVER AND NORTH EAST DERBYSHIRE IN DERBYSHIRE ,THE COMMISSION'S FINAL REPORT AND PROPOSALS INTRODUCTION i 1 . This report contains our final proposals for the Metropolitan Borough of Rotherham's boundaries with the City of Sheffield, the 'Metropolitan Borough of Doncaster, the District of Bassetlaw in Nottinghamshire, and the Districts of Bolsover and North East Derbyshire in Derbyshire. We are not suggesting any radical 'changes but are making a number of minor proposals to make the Boundary more clearly identifiable and to remove anomalies. Our Recommendations in respect of Rotherham's boundary with Barnsley are contained in our earlier report No. 601. ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE START OF THE REVIEW i 2. On 1 September 1987 we wrote to Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council announcing our intention to undertake a review of Rotherham as part of the Mandatory Review of South Yorkshire and the districts within it under Section 48(1) of the Local iGovernment Act 1972, i 3.
    [Show full text]