15-19 North Street Ashford, Kent, Tn24 8Lf 15-19 North Street, Ashford, Kent, Tn24 8Lf 2
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Operation Stack
House of Commons Transport Committee Operation Stack First Report of Session 2016–17 HC 65 House of Commons Transport Committee Operation Stack First Report of Session 2016–17 Report, together with formal minutes relating to the report Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed 23 May 2016 HC 65 Published on 1 June 2016 by authority of the House of Commons Transport Committee The Transport Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to examine the expenditure, administration, and policy of the Department for Transport and its associated public bodies. Current membership Mrs Louise Ellman MP (Labour (Co-op), Liverpool, Riverside) (Chair) Robert Flello MP (Labour, Stoke-on-Trent South) Mary Glindon MP (Labour, North Tyneside) Karl McCartney MP (Conservative, Lincoln) Stewart Malcolm McDonald MP (Scottish National Party, Glasgow South) Mark Menzies MP (Conservative, Fylde) Huw Merriman MP (Conservative, Bexhill and Battle) Will Quince MP (Conservative, Colchester) Iain Stewart MP (Conservative, Milton Keynes South) Graham Stringer MP (Labour, Blackley and Broughton) Martin Vickers MP (Conservative, Cleethorpes) Powers The Committee is one of the departmental select committees, the powers of which are set out in House of Commons Standing Orders, principally in SO No 152. These are available on the internet via www.parliament.uk. Publication Committee reports are published on the Committee’s website at www.parliament.uk/transcom and in print by Order of the House. Evidence relating to this report is published on the inquiry publications page of the Committee’s website. Committee staff The current staff of the Committee are Gordon Clarke (Committee Clerk), Gail Bartlett (Second Clerk), James Clarke (Committee Specialist), Andrew Haylen (Committee Specialist), Adrian Hitchins (Committee Specialist), Daniel Moeller (Senior Committee Assistant), Michelle Owens (Committee Assistant) and Estelle Currie (Media Officer). -
Infrastructure Delivery Plan
Tunbridge Wells Borough Council Infrastructure Delivery Plan March 2021 1.0 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 1 2.0 Background and Policy Context ..................................................................................... 2 National Policy ...................................................................................................................... 2 Local Policy .......................................................................................................................... 3 Local Plan policy context and strategy for growth ................................................................ 4 Policy STR 1 - The Development Strategy .............................................................................. 6 What is infrastructure? ......................................................................................................... 8 Engagement ....................................................................................................................... 10 Prioritisation of infrastructure .............................................................................................. 11 Identified risks .................................................................................................................... 12 Timing ................................................................................................................................ 12 Costs ................................................................................................................................. -
In the Borough of Ashford Prow
‘Honey Hill’ and the field boundary where the path no longer follows PROW - IN THE BOROUGH OF ASHFORD the stream, for a distance of 1km. Notice of the makiNg of aN order to temporarily close There is no alternative route. public footpath AU67 iN ashford For detailed enquiries please contact Andrew Hutchinson Contact In the borough of ashford Centre no. 03000 417171 keNt couNty couNcil Or for further details on temporary closures on the Rights of Way Network see: www.kent.gov.uk/prowclosures (public footpath AU67) (prohibitioN of traffic) temporary order 2017 PROW - IN THE BOROUGH OF SWALE Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, Section 14(1), As Amended By The Road Traffic (Temporary Restrictions) Act 1991 Notice of the makiNg of aN order to temporarily close kent county council has made an order the effect of which is to restricted byWays ZSX47, ZSX48 aNd ZSX90 iN the town of temporarily close public footpath AU67, between its junction with sheerNess public footpath AU66 and tQ 9939 4386 from the 13th November In the borough of Swale 2017. keNt couNty couNcil The path will be closed for a maximum of six months, although it is expected that it will reopen before the end of December 2017. (restricted byWays ZSX47, ZSX48 aNd ZSX90) (prohibitioN of traffic) temporary order 2017 The path is closed because works are planned on or near it. Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, Section 14(1), As Amended By The The alternative route is via the tarmac track through Lodge Wood and Road Traffic (Temporary Restrictions) Act 1991 will be signed for the duration of the closure. -
Appendix B KENT YOUTH SERVICE
Appendix B KENT YOUTH SERVICE: NEEDS ANALYSIS AND OUTCOMES FRAMEWORK FOR THE COMMISSIONING OF YOUTH WORK PROVISION IN KENT 1. Introduction 1.1 The publication ‘Bold Steps for Kent’ outlines the medium term plan for Kent County Council for the next four years; one of its three aims is to ‘put the citizen in control’: “power and influence must be in the hands of local people and local communities so they are more able to take responsibility for their own community and service needs, such as creating new social enterprise”. In line with this aim, Kent Youth Service is seeking to commission a range of providers to deliver youth work within local communities. This document lays out the intended outcomes for young people and the communities in which they live as a result of this commissioning process. 2. Service Context 2.1 The Education and Inspections Act 2006 (Section 6) places a duty on local authorities to provide for young people aged 13-19 (and up to 24 for those with learning difficulties and/or disabilities) sufficient recreational and educational leisure time activities and facilities for the improvement of young people’s well-being and their personal and social development. 2.2 The focus on the ages 13-19 reflects the fact that these ages are commonly understood to represent a transition period for young people during which the engagement in positive leisure time activities as described in the Education and Inspection Act 2006 can offer significant benefits to young people. The statutory guidance for this duty states that local authorities should be clear that they are able to secure access to positive activities in order to accommodate individuals with early or delayed transitions. -
Shopping Assessment GL Hearn June 2008
Rother District Wide Shopping Assessment June 2008 PREPARED BY GL Hearn Property Consultants 20 Soho Square London W1D 3QW Tel: +44 (0)20 7851 4900 Fax: +44 (0)20 7851 4910 Email: [email protected] www.glhearn.com Date: June 2008 Ref: J: Planning/Job Files/J019130/Reports/Rother District Wide Shopping Assessment - Final Rother District Wide Shopping Assessment 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 GL Hearn was instructed by Rother District Council in October 2007 to undertake a District-wide Shopping Assessment. The purpose of this assessment is to inform and guide retail planning in the District and to form a robust evidential base for the preparation of the Council’s Local Development Framework Core Strategy. 1.2 The main objectives of the Assessment were set out in the Council’s Brief (Appendix 1) and these comprised: a) Current, and trends in (over the last 10 years), shopping rental levels in each town using published data; b) An assessment of the position of town shopping centres in Rother within the sub-regional retail hierarchy, drawing on comparative data on existing floorspace, catchments, accessibility, etc factors (to include Eastbourne, Hastings, Tunbridge Wells, Ashford and Folkestone); c) A residents survey for these catchment areas (a statistically representative 1% sample) on where they shop for convenience goods, comparison goods, and service trade services, on how often they shop in the various locations and their view of future provision for additional shopping in Rother District; d) The views of key stakeholders and the implications -
Greater Ashford: a Vision in Peril?
A CPRE Kent report Greater Ashford: a vision in peril? November 2007 2 FOREWORD Ashford, at the heart of a thriving rural area of Kent, has been the focus of much attention since the announcement of the Government’s Sustainable Communities Plan in 2003. It is one of the four ‘Growth Areas’ established by this plan to ease the housing shortages of the South East. CPRE Kent believes that Ashford has the potential to become an exemplar of the way in which we can build truly sustainable communities for the 21st century. However, Five years into the 30-year period that is proposed for Ashford’s transformation we fear that this transformation may be losing its focus. On the face of it, Ashford should be the easiest of the Growth Areas to plan and to deliver: unlike the other areas identified in the Plan, (the Thames Gateway, Milton Keynes/South Midlands and Stansted-Cambridge-Peterborough), it spans only one region, one county and one administrative district. This report details our major concerns regarding the critical balance of infrastructure, jobs and housing. We must push for the creation of a thriving, energetic town, not a commuter dormitory which relies on the job markets of London or beyond. The growth in the number of jobs in Ashford is falling far short of the growth in its homes. Worse still, those jobs that are being created appear to focus heavily on the retail sector, rather than the high-skill, high-value professions that Ashford needs to create a thriving economy. Plans for the new Discovery Centre which was to have been a major deliverable of the development have been abandoned, and we see this as an early symptom of the widening gap between aspiration and achievement. -
Initial Proposals for New Parliamentary Constituency Boundaries in the South East Region Contents
Initial proposals for new Parliamentary constituency boundaries in the South East region Contents Summary 3 1 What is the Boundary Commission for England? 5 2 Background to the 2018 Review 7 3 Initial proposals for the South East region 11 Initial proposals for the Berkshire sub-region 12 Initial proposals for the Brighton and Hove, East Sussex, 13 Kent, and Medway sub-region Initial proposals for the West Sussex sub-region 16 Initial proposals for the Buckinghamshire 17 and Milton Keynes sub-region Initial proposals for the Hampshire, Portsmouth 18 and Southampton sub-region Initial proposals for the Isle of Wight sub-region 20 Initial proposals for the Oxfordshire sub-region 20 Initial proposals for the Surrey sub-region 21 4 How to have your say 23 Annex A: Initial proposals for constituencies, 27 including wards and electorates Glossary 53 Initial proposals for new Parliamentary constituency boundaries in the South East region 1 Summary Who we are and what we do Our proposals leave 15 of the 84 existing constituencies unchanged. We propose The Boundary Commission for England only minor changes to a further 47 is an independent and impartial constituencies, with two wards or fewer non -departmental public body which is altered from the existing constituencies. responsible for reviewing Parliamentary constituency boundaries in England. The rules that we work to state that we must allocate two constituencies to the Isle The 2018 Review of Wight. Neither of these constituencies is required to have an electorate that is within We have the task of periodically reviewing the requirements on electoral size set out the boundaries of all the Parliamentary in the rules. -
The Regional Impact of the Channel Tunnel Throughout the Community
-©fine Channel Tunnel s throughpdrth^Çpmmunity European Commission European Union Regional Policy and Cohesion Regional development studies The regional impact of the Channel Tunnel throughout the Community European Commission Already published in the series Regional development studies 01 — Demographic evolution in European regions (Demeter 2015) 02 — Socioeconomic situation and development of the regions in the neighbouring countries of the Community in Central and Eastern Europe 03 — Les politiques régionales dans l'opinion publique 04 — Urbanization and the functions of cities in the European Community 05 — The economic and social impact of reductions in defence spending and military forces on the regions of the Community 06 — New location factors for mobile investment in Europe 07 — Trade and foreign investment in the Community regions: the impact of economic reform in Central and Eastern Europe 08 — Estudio prospectivo de las regiones atlánticas — Europa 2000 Study of prospects in the Atlantic regions — Europe 2000 Étude prospective des régions atlantiques — Europe 2000 09 — Financial engineering techniques applying to regions eligible under Objectives 1, 2 and 5b 10 — Interregional and cross-border cooperation in Europe 11 — Estudio prospectivo de las regiones del Mediterráneo Oeste Évolution prospective des régions de la Méditerranée - Ouest Evoluzione delle prospettive delle regioni del Mediterraneo occidentale 12 — Valeur ajoutée et ingénierie du développement local 13 — The Nordic countries — what impact on planning and development -
London Metropolitan Archives Victorian Society
LONDON METROPOLITAN ARCHIVES Page 1 VICTORIAN SOCIETY LMA/4460 Reference Description Dates BUILDING SUB-COMMITTEE CASE FILES BEDFORDSHIRE HUNTINGDON AND PETERBOROUGH LMA/4460/01/01/001 Hiawatha, 6 Goldington Road, Bedford, 1968 Bedfordshire CC (Houses): demolition threat 1 file Former reference: Z34 LMA/4460/01/01/002 Old Warden Park and village, Old Warden, 1970-1982 Bedfordshire CC (Houses): development in village and listing of features in park 1 file Former reference: WV12 and O13 LMA/4460/01/01/003 Milton Ernest Hall, Milton Ernest, Bedfordshire 1968-1985 CC (Houses): restoration and addition of fire escape 1 file Former reference: C5 LMA/4460/01/01/004 Queensgate Centre, Queen Street, 1975 Peterborough, Greater Peterborough (Shopping centres): demolition and new development 1 file Former reference: Z133 BERKSHIRE LMA/4460/01/02/001 Oakley Court, Windsor Road, Bray, Royal 1967-1980 Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead (Houses): listing and new development Includes letter from Sir John Betjeman 1 file Former reference: VM5 LMA/4460/01/02/002 Buildings adjacent to Church of All Saints, Boyn 1971-1995 Hill Maidenhead, Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead (Church buildings): poor condition and alterations 1 file Former reference: R5 LMA/4460/01/02/003 New town hall, Maidenhead, Royal Borough of 1959-1962 Windsor and Maidenhead (Town halls): new development 1 file Former reference: Z71 LONDON METROPOLITAN ARCHIVES Page 2 VICTORIAN SOCIETY LMA/4460 Reference Description Dates LMA/4460/01/02/004 Library, Maidenhead, Royal Borough of 1966-1967 -
The Truth Behind Op Stack.Pdf
THE TRUTH BEHIND OPERATION STACK 1. What is Operation Stack? Operation Stack is an emergency procedure implemented by Kent Police to ‘stack’ coast-bound cross-Channel freight traffic on parts of the M20 motorway. History Although originally operated on the A2 by Kent Police before the M20 was completed, once the Channel Tunnel was built and the trunk road from the M20 through to Dover was completed, the M20 became the primary route for cross-Channel freight vehicles. A new version of Operation Stack was subsequently devised for the M20, initially comprising of a coast-bound closure between Junction 11 and Junction 13 as Phase 1 and, if required, a closure of the London-bound carriage way for Phase 2. Purpose Stack is activated when there is a significant blockage to the flow of cross-Channel freight traffic beyond the control of the Port that results in demand for space at either the Channel Tunnel or Port of Dover Ferry Terminal outstripping their parking capacity, resulting in traffic backing up onto the surrounding road network. It has been needed during times of stress such as:- Strike action in Calais Extreme weather conditions Channel Tunnel problems (e.g. migrant incursions, line failure etc) 1 2. Stack Today Implementation Operation Stack is activated by Kent Police based on information received from several sources including the Port of Dover and the Channel Tunnel. Good communication with Kent Police is essential in notifying of any problems that may lead to the need for Stack as it takes approximately two hours from the time of notification to actually closing the motorway and takes a considerable amount of police resource. -
M20 Junction
M20 Junction 10a TR010006 5.1 Consultation Report APFP Regulation 5(2)(q) Revision A Planning Act 2008 Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009 Volume 5 July 2016 M20 Junction 10a TR010006 5.1 Consultation Report Volume 5 This document is issued for the party which commissioned it We accept no responsibility for the consequences of this and for specific purposes connected with the above-captioned document being relied upon by any other party, or being used project only. It should not be relied upon by any other party or for any other purpose, or containing any error or omission used for any other purpose. which is due to an error or omission in data supplied to us by other parties This document contains confidential information and proprietary intellectual property. It should not be shown to other parties without consent from us and from the party which commissioned it. Date: July 2016 M20 Junction 10a Consultation Report TR010006 Foreword Highways England has undertaken a fully managed programme of consultation with the local community and wider stakeholders. The consultation process has facilitated feedback which has been carefully considered throughout the development of the M20 junction 10a Scheme (the 'Scheme'). Pre-application consultation is an important element of any Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project. Highways England has taken careful consideration to relevant legislation, guidance and notes when designing the pre-application strategy. Early consultation addressed the main strategic and audience interaction needs to deliver a meaningful and progressive engagement programme. A number of different model groups were supported throughout the non-statutory engagement period. -
M20 Junction 10A Scheme Is Identified As a Key Transport Requirement and Is Essential to the Future Development of South Ashford
M20 J10A ACCESS TO SOUTH ASHFORD HIGHWAYS AGENCY TECHNICAL APPRAISAL REPORT M20 J10A ACCESS TO SOUTH ASHFORD PUBLIC CONSULTATION REPORT February 2009 Report Number GR053 Revision: Issue 1 M20 J10A – ACCESS TO THE SOUTH OF ASHFORD HIGHWAYS AGENCY PUBLIC CONSULTATION REPORT CONTENTS Page 1 INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................9 1.1 General............................................................................................................................9 1.2 Purpose of Consultation.................................................................................................9 1.3 Background...................................................................................................................10 2 PROPOSALS PRESENTED FOR PUBLIC CONSULTATION............................................11 2.1 The Proposed Option – Junction 10A Gyratory ..........................................................11 2.2 Alternative options .......................................................................................................12 Alternative Option 1 – Further Improvements to Existing Junction 10.................................12 Alternative Option 2 – Junction 10A Single Bridge Interchange...........................................12 3 CONSULTATION ARRANGEMENTS ................................................................................13 3.1 Information issued to Statutory Consultees................................................................13