DOCSLIB.ORG

N No of Establishments Ot Yet Rated Fo Intervent

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
N No of Establishments Ot Yet Rated Fo Intervent Authority Total No of No of Total % of Total % of Total % of Total % of Total % of Total % of Total % of Total % of Total % of Total % of Total % of Total % of Total Total No of Total No Total No Total No of Total No of Total No of Total No of Total No of Total No of Establishments Establishments Broadly Broadly Broadly Broadly Broadly Broadly Interventions Interventions Interventions Interventions Interventions Interventions number of formal of formal of formal formal formal formal formal formal formal (inc unrated) not yet rated for compliant compliant compliant compliant compliant compliant achieved achieved - achieved - achieved - achieved - achieved - samples enforcement enforcem enforceme enforcement enforcement enforcemen enforceme enforcement enforcement intervention premises premises - A premises - B premises - C premises - D premises - E Premises Rated A Premises Rated B Premises Rated C Premises Rated D Premises Rated E taken actions taken ent nt actions actions taken actions taken t actions nt actions actions taken - actions taken - - actions taken - - Seizure, - taken - taken - Improvement Remedial Prosecutions taken - Voluntary dentention Suspension/r Emergency Prohibtion Notices Action & Simple closures and evocation of Prohibition Orders Detention Cautions surrender of approval Notices Notices food DISTRICT COUNCILS Adur 446 39 82.3% 0.0% 29.4% 81.9% 100.0% 100.0% 99.7% 100.0% 100.0% 99.4% 100.0% 100.0% 101 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 Allerdale 1332 77 92.0% 0.0% 46.7% 88.2% 97.1% 99.8% 90.4% 100.0% 97.6% 96.2% 93.9% 70.4% 59 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 6 0 Alnwick* N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 33.9% 100.0% 94.7% 99.0% 13.4% 2.3% N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Amber Valley 986 14 90.7% 20.0% 58.6% 88.3% 97.4% 100.0% 91.5% 100.0% 95.2% 92.8% 83.9% 87.5% 80 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 3 0 Arun 1119 38 75.3% 0.0% 31.9% 68.1% 97.3% 99.7% 89.6% 100.0% 97.8% 96.7% 92.5% 51.1% 37 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 0 Ashfield 905 15 87.1% 16.7% 49.0% 86.6% 100.0% 100.0% 98.8% 100.0% 99.4% 98.9% 97.1% 100.0% 85 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 0 Ashford 1063 8 91.6% 50.0% 46.5% 86.3% 95.7% 99.8% 99.1% 100.0% 100.0% 99.3% 96.9% 98.1% 155 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 6 0 Aylesbury Vale 1207 63 87.8% 0.0% 32.9% 86.0% 97.6% 99.4% 84.4% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 98.5% 27.6% 27 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 9 0 Babergh 888 0 88.0% 11.1% 38.6% 81.3% 92.6% 99.8% 98.1% 100.0% 100.0% 99.3% 97.2% 93.8% 94 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 Barrow-in-Furness 610 59 95.5% 100.0% 46.7% 92.3% 98.3% 100.0% 83.3% 80.0% 96.3% 82.1% 55.6% 100.0% 158 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 Basildon 1152 49 86.1% 7.7% 41.4% 83.8% 92.0% 99.4% 98.4% 100.0% 97.9% 97.9% 100.0% 98.6% 162 1 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Basingstoke & Deane 1138 15 97.2% 0.0% 81.3% 95.2% 98.6% 100.0% 96.6% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 87.2% 24 0 0 4 0 0 1 0 19 0 Bassetlaw 821 48 91.3% 22.2% 54.9% 92.0% 98.6% 100.0% 99.8% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 98.9% 89 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 Bedford 1347 6 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 90.4% 100.0% 100.0% 92.2% 89.9% 79.9% 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 Berwick Upon Tweed** N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Blaby 675 35 89.8% 0.0% 62.5% 86.5% 95.1% 100.0% 96.7% 100.0% 98.6% 95.8% 92.6% 100.0% 161 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 0 Blyth Valley** N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Bolsover 679 10 81.9% 0.0% 32.2% 77.6% 98.0% 99.5% 91.7% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 69.4% 146 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 4 0 Boston 595 7 92.9% 33.3% 82.6% 89.6% 98.2% 100.0% 99.8% 100.0% 100.0% 99.6% 100.0% 100.0% 42 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 Braintree 1205 35 93.2% 0.0% 51.7% 90.5% 99.6% 100.0% 98.5% 100.0% 99.2% 98.7% 99.4% 95.9% 102 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 Breckland 1392 119 94.7% 0.0% 45.3% 93.7% 99.5% 99.8% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 147 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 Brentwood 682 16 89.0% 0.0% 42.9% 87.6% 94.0% 99.2% 99.4% 100.0% 100.0% 99.4% 100.0% 98.5% 129 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 Bridgnorth 665 31 86.1% 20.0% 31.9% 83.3% 94.6% 99.5% 87.6% 90.0% 98.0% 91.6% 90.3% 57.1% 29 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Broadland 1131 118 87.1% 18.8% 65.8% 84.2% 96.1% 99.7% 91.8% 93.7% 97.2% 95.6% 89.3% 61.3% 268 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 12 0 Bromsgrove 626 49 92.7% 28.6% 78.2% 92.4% 100.0% 100.0% 85.1% 92.3% 88.5% 82.2% 89.8% 95.7% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Broxbourne 667 7 86.5% 33.3% 44.2% 80.4% 89.8% 100.0% 99.2% 100.0% 98.8% 99.4% 100.0% 98.6% 39 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 Broxtowe 839 50 85.4% 0.0% 62.7% 82.9% 98.2% 100.0% 99.9% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 99.0% 100.0% 109 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 34 0 Burnley 926 0 91.3% 33.3% 62.9% 86.6% 98.6% 100.0% 80.5% 84.2% 98.6% 86.4% 42.2% 55.6% 23 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 Cambridge City 1422 285 85.7% 0.0% 37.9% 83.6% 94.4% 98.4% 94.9% 100.0% 100.0% 93.4% 96.2% 96.1% 35 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 0 Cannock Chase 763 31 89.9% 20.0% 52.4% 87.0% 94.8% 100.0% 88.2% 95.7% 92.9% 92.1% 43.5% 100.0% 143 0 2 1 1 0 0 0 9 0 Canterbury City 1568 162 91.8% 0.0% 52.7% 89.7% 99.2% 100.0% 97.6% 100.0% 98.7% 99.8% 97.5% 88.2% 141 0 0 1 3 0 1 0 2 0 Caradon 1189 123 90.4% 4.0% 50.0% 94.1% 95.8% 99.5% 96.8% 99.1% 100.0% 95.7% 97.3% 95.1% 287 3 0 6 0 0 0 0 27 0 Carlisle City 1151 132 92.9% 11.1% 53.3% 92.0% 97.4% 100.0% 98.1% 95.2% 97.5% 99.7% 90.9% 99.0% 120 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 11 0 Carrick 1281 193 79.0% 14.3% 48.2% 74.3% 86.8% 98.6% 88.6% 100.0% 98.5% 93.9% 70.1% 81.0% 125 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 Castle Morpeth 479 71 93.4% N/A 21.1% 88.7% 100.0% 100.0% 68.2% N/A 76.9% 65.8% 73.6% 66.9% 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 Castle Point 478 21 71.6% 0.0% 38.7% 69.5% 87.5% 98.8% 98.5% 100.0% 96.3% 99.2% 97.1% 100.0% 69 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Charnwood 1310 54 80.6% 10.0% 39.3% 76.5% 92.8% 100.0% 95.5% 100.0% 93.5% 97.8% 77.6% 100.0% 12 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 6 0 Chelmsford 1075 0 84.7% 0.0% 33.7% 82.3% 92.6% 99.5% 99.2% 100.0% 98.9% 99.1% 100.0% 100.0% 158 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 2 0 Cheltenham 802 14 72.6% 0.0% 31.8% 71.7% 95.3% 100.0% 95.0% 100.0% 100.0% 93.7% 92.0% 90.7% 164 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 4 0 Cherwell 998 0 71.9% 0.0% 63.0% 52.8% 100.0% 100.0% 95.2% 100.0% 100.0% 96.4% 96.4% 86.2% 75 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 Chester City 751 8 90.0% 28.6% 72.3% 90.4% 98.4% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 328 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 15 0 Chesterfield 977 9 90.9% 0.0% 38.1% 89.8% 97.3% 100.0% 99.5% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 95.8% 122 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 12 0 Chester-le-Street 337 1 82.4% 0.0% 27.0% 84.4% 97.8% 100.0% 99.7% 100.0% 98.9% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 163 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Chichester 1318 43 80.8% 8.3% 26.6% 78.6% 86.6% 98.9% 98.6% 100.0% 100.0% 99.3% 94.7% 96.4% 234 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 Chiltern 790 58 86.5% 33.3% 45.3% 80.8% 95.1% 100.0% 92.8% 100.0% 93.5% 93.4% 74.2% 100.0% 99 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 0 Chorley 859 23 95.1% 50.0% 86.5% 92.7% 98.1% 100.0% 97.5% 100.0% 89.5% 97.5% 100.0% 99.0% 35 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Christchurch 364 1 79.1% 0.0% 33.3% 68.0% 99.0% 100.0% 97.1% 100.0% 100.0% 94.2% 100.0% 100.0% 62 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Colchester 1364 62 91.0% 50.0% 47.2% 91.2% 98.0% 99.4% 98.3% 100.0% 99.1% 98.3% 97.8% 97.7% 383 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 Congleton 758 12 87.7% 0.0% 65.5% 86.9% 95.9% 100.0% 99.6% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 96.5% 170 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 0 ClCopelandd 766 134 87.2%87 2% 12.5%12 5% 50.8%50 8% 86.0%86 0% 97.8%97 8% 100.0%100 0% 75.1%75 1% 92.9%92 9% 96.9%96 9% 72.072 0%% 55.0%55 0% 69.769 7%% 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 1 Corby 333 28 94.4% 0.0% 53.3% 94.9% 95.7% 100.0% 95.7% 100.0% 82.1% 95.4% 100.0% 98.1% 148 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 Cotswold 1139 92 87.4% 11.1% 41.0% 83.5% 96.9% 98.5% 80.0% 100.0% 97.0% 75.5% 49.2% 71.4% 162 0 2 1 0 0 1 1 9 1 Craven 856 23 94.7% 0.0% 65.1% 93.1% 99.1% 100.0% 96.0% 100.0% 97.0% 96.7% 96.0% 93.4% 257 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Crawley Borough Council 767 70 80.8% 11.1% 30.8% 80.5% 100.0% 97.6% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 65 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 12 0 Crewe and Nantwich 924 20 77.8% 7.1% 36.1% 79.5% 96.5% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 219 0 0 2 13 0 0 0 26 0 Dacorum 1430 79 94.3% 0.0% 49.2% 92.8% 100.0% 100.0% 78.5% 100.0% 100.0% 86.2% 60.2% 64.0% 71 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 Dartford Borough Council 831 60 91.3% 0.0% 44.6% 93.5% 99.6% 100.0% 91.4% 100.0% 90.9% 90.9% 94.0% 81.0% 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 Daventry District Council 667 21 93.5% 0.0% 50.0% 90.1% 98.1% 100.0% 47.7% 100.0% 88.9% 57.7% 61.0% 17.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 0 Derbyshire Dales 1449 203 92.9% 18.2% 60.0% 88.1% 99.1% 100.0% 45.7% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 86.1% 2.0% 53 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 2 0 Derwentside 636 44 79.7% 0.0% 48.3% 76.2% 97.3% 100.0% 58.8% 100.0% 100.0% 74.6% 50.0% 2.7% 189 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 Dover 1156 35 89.1% 0.0% 41.3% 87.7% 96.4% 99.5% 96.7% 100.0% 100.0% 98.2% 98.6% 64.1% 41 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 11 0 Durham City 746 45 81.5% 0.0% 50.4% 89.0% 97.4% 98.7% 96.9% 100.0% 99.2% 99.6% 94.6% 46.2% 242 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 Easington 844 33 78.8% 0.0% 39.5% 82.0% 97.9% 100.0% 87.3% 100.0% 97.4% 95.1% 42.3% 100.0% 41 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 East Cambridgeshire 636 41 79.2% 0.0% 26.7% 80.0% 85.4% 99.1% 98.4% 100.0% 98.4% 97.1% 100.0% 100.0% 34 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 0 East Devon 1598 198 94.3% 0.0% 70.5% 91.9% 100.0% 100.0% 95.0% 92.9% 95.7% 96.0% 90.6% 94.1% 253 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 East Dorset 760 43 91.4% 37.5% 60.0% 89.6% 89.6% 100.0% 58.7% 94.4% 94.7% 81.0% 33.3% 14.2% 140 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 East Hampshire 862 19 91.6% 33.3% 63.6% 88.0% 98.0% 100.0% 87.3% 100.0% 99.4% 89.4% 48.0% 55.2% 98 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 East Hertfordshire 701 44 83.9% 0.0% 50.0% 85.1% 100.0% N/A 92.0% 100.0% 100.0% 88.9% 81.7% 100.0% 14 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 East Lindsey 1833 8 91.5% 8.3% 64.8% 90.6% 98.2% 99.3% 78.0% 100.0% 96.6% 74.6% 86.7% 64.7% 359 1 11 0 0 0 0 0 13 0 East Northamptonshire 675 66 93.6% 0.0% 67.4% 93.9% 95.9% 100.0% 89.7% 100.0% 90.6% 89.4% 86.9% 93.5% 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 East Staffordshire 995 0 91.8% 33.3% 50.0% 86.4% 98.4% 99.5% 92.6% 100.0% 93.0% 90.0% 94.8% 95.9% 54 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 Eastbourne
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Local Government Review in the Derwentside District Council Area, County Durham
    Local Government Review in the Derwentside District Council Area, County Durham Research Study Conducted for The Boundary Committee for England April 2004 Contents Introduction 3 Summary of Key Findings 5 Methodology 7 Definitions of Social Grade and Area 11 Topline Findings (Marked-up Questionnaire) 13 Introduction This summary report presents the key findings of research conducted by the MORI Social Research Institute on behalf of The Boundary Committee for England in the Derwentside District Council area, County Durham. The aim of the research was to establish residents’ views about alternative patterns of unitary local government. Background to the Research In May 2003, the Government announced that a referendum would take place in autumn 2004 in the North East, North West and Yorkshire and the Humber regions on whether there should be elected regional assemblies. The Government indicated that, where a regional assembly is set up, the current two-tier structure of local government - district, borough or city councils (called in this report ‘districts’) and county councils - should be replaced by a single tier of ‘unitary’ local authorities. In June 2003, the Government directed The Boundary Committee for England (‘the Committee’) to undertake an independent review of local government in two-tier areas in the three regions, with a view to recommending possible unitary structures to be put before affected local people in a referendum at a later date. MORI was commissioned by COI Communications, on behalf of the Committee, to help it gauge local opinion. The research was in two stages. First, in summer 2003, MORI researched local residents’ views about local government and how they identify with their local community.
    [Show full text]
  • Evidence on Aluminium Collection by Local Authorities Project Code
    Project Name: Evidence on Aluminium Collection by Local Authorities Project Code - WR1201 Final Report April 2008 This research was commissioned and funded by Defra. The views expressed reflect the research findings and the author’s interpretation. The inclusion of or reference to any particular policy in this report should not be taken to imply that it has, or will be, endorsed by Defra. BeEnvironmental Ltd · Suite 213 Lomeshaye Business Village · Turner Road · Nelson · Lancashire · BB9 7DR · 01282 618135 · www.beenvironmental.com Quality Control Job Evidence on Aluminium Collection by Local Authorities Client Defra Date April 2008 Report Title Evidence on Aluminium Collection by Local Authorities (Project Code: WR1201) Report status Final Author Dr Jane Beasley Director Reviewed by Elaine Lockley Director Client Contact Nick Blakey, Waste Evidence Branch, Defra Details Be Environmental Suite 213 Lomeshaye Business Village Turner Road, Nelson Lancashire, BB9 7DR Phone 01282 618135 Fax 01282 611416 [email protected] Disclaimer: BeEnvironmental (the trading name of BeEnvironmental Limited) has taken all reasonable care and diligence in the preparation of this report to ensure that all facts and analysis presented are as accurate as possible within the scope of the project. However no guarantee is provided in respect of the information presented, and BeEnvironmental is not responsible for decisions or actions taken on the basis of the content of this report. BeEnvironmental Ltd · Suite 213 Lomeshaye Business Village · Turner Road
    [Show full text]
  • Derwentside College
    REPORT FROM THE INSPECTORATE Derwentside College August 1997 THE FURTHER EDUCATION FUNDING COUNCIL THE FURTHER EDUCATION FUNDING COUNCIL The Further Education Funding Council has a legal duty to make sure further education in England is properly assessed. The FEFC’s inspectorate inspects and reports on each college of further education every four years. The inspectorate also assesses and reports nationally on the curriculum and gives advice to the FEFC’s quality assessment committee. College inspections are carried out in accordance with the framework and guidelines described in Council Circular 93/28. They involve full-time inspectors and registered part-time inspectors who have knowledge and experience in the work they inspect. Inspection teams normally include at least one member who does not work in education and a member of staff from the college being inspected. Cheylesmore House Quinton Road Coventry CV1 2WT Telephone 01203 863000 Fax 01203 863100 © FEFC 1997 You may photocopy this report. CONTENTS Paragraph Summary Introduction 1 The college and its aims 2 Responsiveness and range of provision 10 Governance and management 19 Students’ recruitment, guidance and support 30 Teaching and the promotion of learning 40 Students’ achievements 50 Quality assurance 61 Resources 70 Conclusions and issues 80 Figures GRADE DESCRIPTORS The procedures for assessing quality are set out in the Council Circular 93/28. During their inspection, inspectors assess the strengths and weaknesses of each aspect of provision they inspect. Their assessments are set out in the reports. They also use a five-point grading scale to summarise the balance between strengths and weaknesses. The descriptors for the grades are: • grade 1 – provision which has many strengths and very few weaknesses • grade 2 – provision in which the strengths clearly outweigh the weaknesses • grade 3 – provision with a balance of strengths and weaknesses • grade 4 – provision in which the weaknesses clearly outweigh the strengths • grade 5 – provision which has many weaknesses and very few strengths.
    [Show full text]
  • 2004 No. 3211 LOCAL GOVERNMENT, ENGLAND The
    STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS 2004 No. 3211 LOCAL GOVERNMENT, ENGLAND The Local Authorities (Categorisation) (England) (No. 2) Order 2004 Made - - - - 6th December 2004 Laid before Parliament 10th December 2004 Coming into force - - 31st December 2004 The First Secretary of State, having received a report from the Audit Commission(a) produced under section 99(1) of the Local Government Act 2003(b), in exercise of the powers conferred upon him by section 99(4) of that Act, hereby makes the following Order: Citation, commencement and application 1.—(1) This Order may be cited as the Local Authorities (Categorisation) (England) (No.2) Order 2004 and shall come into force on 31st December 2004. (2) This Order applies in relation to English local authorities(c). Categorisation report 2. The English local authorities, to which the report of the Audit Commission dated 8th November 2004 relates, are, by this Order, categorised in accordance with their categorisation in that report. Excellent authorities 3. The local authorities listed in Schedule 1 to this Order are categorised as excellent. Good authorities 4. The local authorities listed in Schedule 2 to this Order are categorised as good. Fair authorities 5. The local authorities listed in Schedule 3 to this Order are categorised as fair. (a) For the definition of “the Audit Commission”, see section 99(7) of the Local Government Act 2003. (b) 2003 c.26. The report of the Audit Commission consists of a letter from the Chief Executive of the Audit Commission to the Minister for Local and Regional Government dated 8th November 2004 with the attached list of local authorities categorised by the Audit Commission as of that date.
    [Show full text]
  • Case Study for Cornwall by REOC Renewable Energy for Commercial
    Case study for Cornwall by REOC Renewable energy for commercial and industrial buildings in Cornwall. REOC report WP5 “Contribution to the planning process” for SEIPLED TECHNO-ECONOMICAL PLANNING DOSSIER (TEP) November 2007 Contents 1 PROJECT AIMS AND OBJECTIVES ..................................................................................................... 4 2 LOCAL CONDITIONS............................................................................................................................... 4 2.1 CORNWALL ECONOMIC STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT............................................................................ 4 2.2 CONVERGENCE PROGRAMME DEVELOPMENT ...................................................................................... 6 2.3 CORNWALL INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL SECTORS........................................................................ 7 2.4 CORNWALL INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS..................................................................... 8 3 CORNWALL INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL ENERGY USE ............................................. 14 3.1 HEAT DEMAND .................................................................................................................................... 16 4 BARRIERS TO RE IN INDUSTRY AND COMMERCE IN CORNWALL..................................... 18 5 OVERCOMING OBSTACLES TO RE IN CORNISH INDUSTRY.................................................. 19 5.1 DEVELOPMENT PHASE........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • THE RURAL ECONOMY of NORTH EAST of ENGLAND M Whitby Et Al
    THE RURAL ECONOMY OF NORTH EAST OF ENGLAND M Whitby et al Centre for Rural Economy Research Report THE RURAL ECONOMY OF NORTH EAST ENGLAND Martin Whitby, Alan Townsend1 Matthew Gorton and David Parsisson With additional contributions by Mike Coombes2, David Charles2 and Paul Benneworth2 Edited by Philip Lowe December 1999 1 Department of Geography, University of Durham 2 Centre for Urban and Regional Development Studies, University of Newcastle upon Tyne Contents 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Scope of the Study 1 1.2 The Regional Context 3 1.3 The Shape of the Report 8 2. THE NATURAL RESOURCES OF THE REGION 2.1 Land 9 2.2 Water Resources 11 2.3 Environment and Heritage 11 3. THE RURAL WORKFORCE 3.1 Long Term Trends in Employment 13 3.2 Recent Employment Trends 15 3.3 The Pattern of Labour Supply 18 3.4 Aggregate Output per Head 23 4 SOCIAL AND GEOGRAPHICAL DYNAMICS 4.1 Distribution of Employment by Gender and Employment Status 25 4.2 Differential Trends in the Remoter Areas and the Coalfield Districts 28 4.3 Commuting Patterns in the North East 29 5 BUSINESS PERFORMANCE AND INFRASTRUCTURE 5.1 Formation and Turnover of Firms 39 5.2 Inward investment 44 5.3 Business Development and Support 46 5.4 Developing infrastructure 49 5.5 Skills Gaps 53 6. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 55 References Appendices 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 The scope of the study This report is on the rural economy of the North East of England1. It seeks to establish the major trends in rural employment and the pattern of labour supply.
    [Show full text]
  • THE LONDON GAZETTE, 27 OCTOBER, 1914. 8627 Said Appendix Were Substituted for the Afore- Caledonian Canal, and the Following Said Second Schedule
    THE LONDON GAZETTE, 27 OCTOBER, 1914. 8627 said Appendix were substituted for the afore- Caledonian Canal, and the following said Second Schedule. parishes to the south and east of the Canal R. McKENNA, —Kilmallie: Kilmonivaig. One of His Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State. KlNCARDINESHIRE. Home Office, Whitehall. The whole county. 23 October, 1914. Ross AND CROMARTY. So much of the County, including the Western Islands, as is not already included in the list ADDITIONAL AREAS. of prohibited areas. ENGLAND. ESSEX. IRELAND. Rural Districts.—Romford (Civil Parishes of CORK. Cranham, Great Warley, Rainham, and The whole county. Wennington). KENT. KERRY. Municipal Borough.—Tenterden. The whole county. Rural Districts.—Tenterden : Cranbrook. APPENDIX. LINCOLNSHIRE. PROHIBITED AREAS. Municipal Borough.—Boston. Urban Districts.—Holbeach : Long Sutton: The following areas are prohibited areas in Spalding: Sutton Bridge. England:'— Rural Districts.—Boston: Crowland: East Elloe: Sibsey: Spalding. CHESHIRE. County Boroughs.—Birkenhead: Chester: NORFOLK. Wallasey. So much of the County as is not already in- Urban Districts.—Bromborough: Ellesmere cluded in the list of prohibited areas. Port and Whitby: Higher Bebington: Hoole: Hoylake and West Kirby: Lower NORTHUMBERLAND . Bebington: Neston and Parkgate: Runcorn. Municipal Borough.—Berwick-upon-Tweed. Rural Districts.—Chester (Civil Parishes of— Urban Districts.—Alnwick: Amble: Roth- Bache, Backford, Blacom cum Crabwall, bury. Bridge Trafford, C'apenhurst, Caughall, Rural Districts.—Alnwick: Belford : Glen- Chorlton by Backford, Croughton, Dunham- dale: Norham and Islandshires: Rothbury. on-the-Hill, Elton, Great Saughall, Haps- fo-rd, Hoole Village, Ince, Lea by Backford, SUFFOLK. Little Saughall, Little Stanney, Mickle So' much of the County as is not already in- Trafford, Mollington, Moston, Newton-by- cluded in the list of prohibited areas.
    [Show full text]
  • 3139 TDC Core Strat 10.07 Aw
    Tynedale Local Development Framework CORE STRATEGY Adopted October 2007 CORE STRATEGY: ADOPTED Tynedale District To Edinburgh Carter Bar Byrness Catcleugh Tynedale Reservoir R RedeA68 Otterburn Kielder Kielder Water A696 Leaplish Tower Knowe Bellingham A68 To Newcastle B6320 Chollerford B6318 To Newcastle Haydon Bridge Corbridge A69 River Greenhead A69 Tyne To Carlisle Haltwhistle Hexham A689 Prudhoe A68 A686 Slaley Allendale Derwent Res. Consett B6295 B6306 Blanchland To Darlington Alston Allenheads To M6, Penrith Photo credits: David Hardy/Tynedale Council; Lucy Greenfield/Tynedale Council; Linda Beckwith/Tynedale Council; Catherine Wood/Tynedale Council; Simon Fraser; Graeme Peacock; Helen Smith; Alan Williams/NHPA; The Kielder Partnership. © Ann Rooke / Tynedale Council Contents Page Introduction 2 Section One: A spatial portrait of Tynedale 7 Section Two: Tynedale in 2021 – a vision for sustainable development 13 Section Three: Spatial objectives 15 Section Four: General development principles 16 Section Five: The natural environment 22 Section Six: The built environment 26 Section Seven: Housing 29 Section Eight: Economic development and tourism 42 Section Nine: Town centres and retailing 46 Section Ten: Community services and facilities 51 Section Eleven: Energy 52 Appendix 1 List of smaller villages in addition to main towns and local centres 56 Appendix 2 Monitoring framework 58 Key Diagram 73 1 CORE STRATEGY: ADOPTED Introduction and ministerial statements. The Core Strategy What is the Core Strategy? has been prepared taking such national policy 0.1 The Core Strategy is one of the documents and relevant guidance into account. The that will make up the Local Development Government Office North East have been Framework. It sets out the overall spatial consulted at each step in the process and planning strategy for Tynedale up to 2021.
    [Show full text]
  • Kerrier District Council
    Appendix A KERRIER DISTRICT COUNCIL REPORT FOR: QUALITY LIVING ENVIRONMENT OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMITTEE – 10 January 2007 REPORT OF: JOINTLY: PRINCIPAL PLANNING OFFICER AND HEAD OF SERVICE – HOUSING - PART I 1 REVISION OF THE COUNCIL’S AFFORDABLE HOUSING POLICY. 1.1 SUMMARY This report is to update Members on the review of the Councils Affordable Housing Policy, including the results of the Affordable Housing Consultation Public Opinion Survey undertaken in August 2006 and the comments received from the formal stakeholder consultation undertaken in October 2006. The adoption of the recommendations arising from this process will amend the operational level policy for affordable housing and dictate the content of planning obligations sought to secure affordable housing. 1.2 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS FOR THE COUNCIL There are no financial implications for the council arising directly from this report. Contained within current Portfolio Plan? No 1.3 OTHER IMPLICATIONS Legal: The implementation of the Policy through planning obligations. Failure to have sufficient regard to consultation responses will expose the Council to challenge Corporate Property: Council owned land may be considered to deliver some affordable housing schemes. Personnel/Trade Union: None. Overview and Scrutiny: Quality Living Environment. Sustainability: To provide sustainable, affordable homes. Community Safety: The schemes will be developed with regard to Community Safety, seeking advice from the Police Architectural Liaison Officer. Social Deprivation: To provide affordable homes. Local Strategic Partnership: To meet the LSP objective of increasing the supply of affordable and decent homes. Comprehensive Performance Assessment: To provide a balanced housing market. Communication/Public Relations: Parish and Town Councils will be consulted as schemes progress.
    [Show full text]
  • Performance Standards for 2007/8 Consultation
    Proposed Planning Best Value Performance Standards for 2007/8 Consultation A consultation paper Proposed Planning Best Value Performance Standards for 2007/8 Consultation October 2006 Department for Communities and Local Government On 5th May 2006 the responsibilities of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) transferred to the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) Department for Communities and Local Government Eland House Bressenden Place London SW1E 5DU Telephone: 020 7944 4400 Website: www.communities.gov.uk © Crown Copyright, 2006 Copyright in the typographical arrangement rests with the Crown. This publication, excluding logos, may be reproduced free of charge in any format or medium for research, private study or for internal circulation within an organisation. This is subject to it being reproduced accurately and not used in a misleading context. The material must be acknowledged as Crown copyright and the title of the publication specified. Any other use of the contents of this publication would require a copyright licence. Please apply for a Click-Use Licence for core material at www.opsi.gov.uk/click-use/system/online/pLogin.asp, or by writing to the Office of Public Sector Information, Information Policy Team, St Clements House, 2-16 Colegate, Norwich, NR3 1BQ. Fax: 01603 723000 or email: [email protected] If you require this publication in an alternative format please email [email protected] DCLG Publications PO Box 236 Wetherby West Yorkshire LS23 7NB Tel: 08701 226 236 Fax: 08701 226 237 Textphone: 08701 207 405 Email: [email protected] or online via the DCLG website: www.communities.gov.uk October 2006 Product Code: 06 PD 04181 Introduction The Government proposes to set further planning Best Value performance standards in 2007/08 under section 4 of the Local Government Act 1999.
    [Show full text]
  • PDF (Volume 2)
    Durham E-Theses Local governance, governmental practices, and the production of policy: local strategic partnerships and area-based 'multiple deprivation' in County Durham Scott, David John How to cite: Scott, David John (2008) Local governance, governmental practices, and the production of policy: local strategic partnerships and area-based 'multiple deprivation' in County Durham, Durham theses, Durham University. Available at Durham E-Theses Online: http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/2229/ Use policy The full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that: • a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in Durham E-Theses • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders. Please consult the full Durham E-Theses policy for further details. Academic Support Oce, Durham University, University Oce, Old Elvet, Durham DH1 3HP e-mail: [email protected] Tel: +44 0191 334 6107 http://etheses.dur.ac.uk 2 Local Governance, Governmental Practices, and the Production of Policy: Local Strategic Partnerships and Area-Based 'Multiple Deprivation' in County Durham Volume 2 of 2 David John Scott Ph.D. thesis The copyright of this thesis rests with the author or the university to which it was submitted. No quotation from it, or information derived from it may be published without the prior written consent of the author or university, and any information derived from it should be acknowledged.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix a National Transport Tokens A
    Appendix A National Transport Tokens A sample of councils offering tokens: Selby District Council (£8) Telford & Wrekin (£16) West Lindsey District Council (£18) City of York Council (£20) Stroud District Council (£20) Wellingborough Borough Council (£22) Wear Valley District Council (£25) West Oxfordshire District Council (£31) Councils offering tokens, on payment of a fee: North Wiltshire District Council (Pay £1 fee, receive £18 worth of tokens) Kettering Borough Council (Pay £11 fee, receive £30 worth of tokens) Wycombe District Council (Pay £15 fee, receive £30 worth of tokens) Cherwell District Council (Pay £1 fee, receive £31 worth of tokens) Braintree District Council (Pay £15 fee, receive £40 worth of tokens) East Northamptonshire District Council (Pay £10 fee, receive £47 worth of tokens) Colchester Borough Council (Pay £12 fee, receive £48 worth of tokens) Aylesbury Vale District Council (Pay £5 fee, receive £60 worth of tokens) Blyth Valley Borough Council (Pay £20 fee, receive £70 worth of tokens) Councils offering tokens to the over 60s only: West Lancashire District Council (£28) Councils offering tokens to disabled people only: Shrewsbury & Atcham Borough Council (£25) Bridgnorth District Council (£30) Christchurch Borough Council (£30) Daventry District Council (£30) East Dorset District Council (£30) Fareham Borough Council (Pay £5, receive £35 worth of tokens) Councils offering tokens of differing amounts according to age: East Hampshire District Council (£24 for 60-69 yrs, £30 for 70+ yrs, £50 for wheelchair users/blind,
    [Show full text]