DOCSLIB.ORG

Safer North Hampshire

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Safer North Hampshire Safer North Hampshire Partnership Plan 2013 - 2014 1 Contents Strategic Assessment Executive Summary 3 Away Day January 2013 9 Project Initiation and Development Grid 2013/14 11 Community Safety Partnership 13 Community Safety Partnership Management Group & Funding 14 Contact 15 Appendix 16 2 Strategic Assessment Executive Summary 1.1 Purpose Safer North Hampshire will produce a Strategic Assessment annually and review it every six months to ensure an intelligence-led business planning approach. Community Safety Partnerships (CSPs) can then be aware of the local priorities and alter their focus as problems in an area change. The aim of the document is to: Establish an accurate picture of current and emerging community safety trends and why they may have occurred Through the Partnership Plan, organise activity and allocate resources based on identified needs, both at local, area and county level Understand our performance and in doing so compare our effectiveness to other CSPs Inform the countywide Strategic Assessment 1.2 Methodology and limitations From 1 November 2012 Basingstoke and Deane, Hart and Rushmoor Community Safety Teams merged. As a result there have been some changes to the way in which Strategic Assessments are completed. There will now be a Safer North Hampshire document, which will summarise the common themes across the three areas and the issues local to Basingstoke and Deane, Hart and Rushmoor. In addition local area summaries will provide more information on identified local trends and issues. Priorities will be set using the scoring Matrix adopted by Hampshire Constabulary and modified for the CSP. Prior to the merger Strategic Assessment processes across Basingstoke and Deane, Hart and Rushmoor varied. This six month assessment is intended to align the three areas and create a starting point upon which future assessments will be based. The current assessment is based on data from 1 April 2012 to 30 September 2012, with comparisons to previous years where appropriate. To ensure a partnership and holistic approach, data from a range of partners has been used throughout this assessment. Data contained in this report has been referenced with the supporting source, and relevant graphs and tables appear throughout the text and in appendices. 3 It is acknowledged that under-reporting is a particular problem in relation to crime. Consequently, this assessment will only reflect those crimes and incidents that have been reported to the relevant agencies and recorded in the correct manner. Data in relation to offenders is reliant on whether they have been caught. Some fields are not completed and therefore show as blank or not stated. Additionally there will be slight differences in the ways which local areas record data. When interpreting the findings it is important to be aware of this. 2. DATA TABLE Crime Type – Safer North 01.04.11 – 01.04.12 – %change & No Hampshire Area 30.09.11 30.09.12 Anti-social behaviour Total anti-social behaviour 6818 6557 -3.8% (n=261) ASB Environmental 715 561 -21.5% (n=154) ASB Personal 2435 2386 -2.0% (n=49) ASB Nuisance 3668 3610 -1.6% (n=58) Repeat Victims of ASB No data No data No data Criminal damage Criminal damage and arson 1867 1441 -22.8% (n=426) HFRS arson 240 116 -51.7% (n=124) Graffiti 370 375 +1.4% (n=5) Fly-tipping No data 1738 No data NTE issues Violence against the person 226 154 -31.9% (n=72) Anti-social behavior 319 336 +5.3% (n17) Criminal damage 86 63 -26.7% (n=23) Violent offences Total violent crime 2654 2207 -16.8% (n=447) Violence against the person 2424 2034 -16.1% (n=390) Sexual offences 157 127 -19.1% (n=30) Robbery 73 46 -37.0% (n=27) Domestic assaults (ABH, common assault 439 408 -7.1% (n=31) & battery) Domestic incidents 2054 1936 -5.7% (n=118) Repeat domestic incidents 873 869 -0.5% (n=4) Acquisitive crime Serious acquisitive crime 1382 835 -39.6% (n=547) Burglary dwelling 478 226 -52.7% (n=252) Burglary non dwelling 973 660 -32.2% (n=313) Theft of motor vehicle 249 135 -45.8% (n=114) Theft from motor vehicle 582 429 -26.3% (n=153) Other theft and handling 1958 1492 -23.8% (n=466) Shop theft 896 721 -19.5% (n=175) Fraud and forgery 720 433 -39.9% (n=287) Other crime types Drug offences 583 538 -7.7% (n=45) Alcohol related offences 1227 861 -29.8% (n=366) Hate crime 80 81 +1.3% (n=1) YOT Substantive Outcome 429 454 +5.8% (n=25) 4 YOT First Time Entrants 125 87 -30.4% (n=38) Feeling Safe No data No data No data Door Step Crime No data No data No data Community Tension No data No data No data Total crime 11123 8434 -24.2% (n=2689) 3. SCANNING 3.1 Summary of identified issues 1. Anti-social behaviour (ASB) – ASB was widespread across Basingstoke and Deane, Hart and Rushmoor and was the single most common incident type in each area. In Basingstoke and Deane ASB increased by 2% on the same time in 2011. Incidents classed as ASB Nuisance were the most common across all three areas. The town centre beats were among the top locations for ASB with a large number of incidents linked to the night time economy. In all three areas ASB increased slightly at the weekend and peaked between 4pm and midnight. ASB scored 128 on the Safer North Hampshire Matrix, the second highest of all incident types. 2. Criminal damage – Significant reductions in criminal damage were made in Basingstoke and Deane, Hart and Rushmoor. When compared to Most Similar Family Groups all three areas ranked 8/15 areas for criminal damage and arson. In all three areas damage to vehicles was the most common, offences increased at the weekend and peaked between 5pm and midnight. Criminal damage scored 96 on the Safer North Hampshire Matrix. 3. HFRS Arson – Significant reductions in levels of arson were recorded by Hampshire Fire and Rescue Service across all three areas. Refuse and grass fires were most common in Basingstoke and Deane, Hart and Rushmoor. Arson peaked in April and levels were fairly low during the summer months in comparison to previous years. Arson scored 57 on the Safer North Hampshire Matrix. 4. Fly-tipping – Reports of fly-tipping increased significantly in Rushmoor, although it is currently not known why this rise occurred. Fly-tipping was also widespread in Basingstoke and Deane. Fly tipping scored 60 on the Safer North Hampshire Matrix. 5. Violent crime – Violence against the person offences contributed the majority of violent crime across Basingstoke and Deane, Hart and Rushmoor. Reductions in this offence type were seen in all three areas. The town centre beats experienced the highest numbers of offences and much of this was linked to the night time economy. Assault and public order offences were the most widespread types of violence against the person. Violence against the person scored 108 on the Safer North Hampshire Matrix. The number of sexual offences also reduced in all three areas. They scored 30 on the Safer North Hampshire Matrix. 5 Robbery was the lowest level violent crime type with reductions seen in Basingstoke and Deane and Hart. Robbery in Rushmoor increased by one offence compared to the same time in 2011 but offences remained low in numbers. Previously cash in transit robberies had been identified as a risk to Rushmoor district. During the current assessment period there were no such offences. Robbery scored 30 on the Safer North Hampshire Matrix. 6. Domestic abuse – Domestic assaults, domestic incidents and repeat domestic incidents contribute a large proportion of violence against the person offences in all three areas. Raising awareness and reducing the number of repeat victims have been identified as areas for improvement across Safer North Hampshire. Domestic abuse scored 132 on the Safer North Hampshire Matrix the highest of any incident type. 7. Night time economy offences (NTE) – NTE offences were common in all three areas, particularly town centre beats where approximately a third of all crime occurred between 10pm and 3am. Violence against the person, criminal damage and ASB were linked to the night time economy in all three areas. NTE offences scored 124 on the Safer North Hampshire Matrix, the third highest off all incident types. 8. Drug and alcohol related offences – The number of drug offences recorded was highly dependent on police activity rather than trends in the level of offending. While Basingstoke and Deane and Hart experienced reductions, drug offences in Rushmoor increased slightly due to a police operation. Possession and supply of cannabis accounted for the majority of offences in all three areas. Rushmoor had the highest percentage of class A offences. Despite reductions in all three areas a large proportion of crime in Basingstoke and Deane, Hart and Rushmoor was linked to alcohol, particularly violent crime, criminal damage and ASB. The town centre beats experienced the most offences, which were often NTE related. Substance misuse related issues scored 120 on the Safer North Hampshire Matrix. 9. Hate crime – Reported hate crimes were very low level across all three areas. While offences in Basingstoke and Deane and Hart reduced Rushmoor experienced a slight rise. This rise was in offences relating to sexual orientation and honor based violence. Offences relating to the Nepali community were low and down on the same time in 2011. Hate crime scored 57 on the Safer North Hampshire Matrix. 10. First Time Entrants to the Youth Justice System –The number of first time entrants to the youth justice system reduced in all three areas.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Postal Sector Council Alternative Sector Name Month (Dates)
    POSTAL COUNCIL ALTERNATIVE SECTOR NAME MONTH (DATES) SECTOR BN15 0 Adur District Council Sompting, Coombes 02.12.20-03.01.21(excl Christmas holidays) BN15 8 Adur District Council Lancing (Incl Sompting (South)) 02.12.20-03.01.21(excl Christmas holidays) BN15 9 Adur District Council Lancing (Incl Sompting (North)) 02.12.20-03.01.21(excl Christmas holidays) BN42 4 Adur District Council Southwick 02.12.20-03.01.21(excl Christmas holidays) BN43 5 Adur District Council Old Shoreham, Shoreham 02.12.20-03.01.21(excl Christmas holidays) BN43 6 Adur District Council Kingston By Sea, Shoreham-by-sea 02.12.20-03.01.21(excl Christmas holidays) BN12 5 Arun District Council Ferring, Goring-by-sea 02.12.20-03.01.21(excl Christmas holidays) BN16 1 Arun District Council East Preston 02.12.20-03.01.21(excl Christmas holidays) BN16 2 Arun District Council Rustington (South), Brighton 02.12.20-03.01.21(excl Christmas holidays) BN16 3 Arun District Council Rustington, Brighton 02.12.20-03.01.21(excl Christmas holidays) BN16 4 Arun District Council Angmering 02.12.20-03.01.21(excl Christmas holidays) BN17 5 Arun District Council Littlehampton (Incl Climping) 02.12.20-03.01.21(excl Christmas holidays) BN17 6 Arun District Council Littlehampton (Incl Wick) 02.12.20-03.01.21(excl Christmas holidays) BN17 7 Arun District Council Wick, Lyminster 02.12.20-03.01.21(excl Christmas holidays) BN18 0 Arun District Council Yapton, Walberton, Ford, Fontwell 02.12.20-03.01.21(excl Christmas holidays) BN18 9 Arun District Council Arundel (Incl Amberley, Poling, Warningcamp)
    [Show full text]
  • Local Election Candidates 2016 Full List
    Reading U.B.C. Abbey (1) Joe Sylvester Reading U.B.C. Battle (1) Alan Lockey Reading U.B.C. Caversham (1) David Foster Reading U.B.C. Church (1) Kathryn McCann Reading U.B.C. Katesgrove (1) Louise Keane Reading U.B.C. Kentwood (1) Ruth Shaffrey Reading U.B.C. Mapledurham (1) Brent Smith Reading U.B.C. Minster (1) Keith Johnson Reading U.B.C. Norcot (1) Jill Wigmore-Welsh Reading U.B.C. Park (1) Brenda McGonigle Reading U.B.C. Peppard (1) Sally Newman Reading U.B.C. Redlands (1) Kizzi Murtagh Reading U.B.C. Southcote (1) Doug Cresswell Reading U.B.C. Thames (1) Sarah McNamara Reading U.B.C. Tilehurst (1) Miriam Kennet Reading U.B.C. Whitley (1) Richard Black Wokingham U.D.C. Bulmershe & Whitegates (2) Adrian Windisch Wokingham U.D.C. Emmbrook (1) David Worley Wokingham U.D.C. Finchampstead North (1) Martyn Foss Wokingham U.D.C. Finchampstead South (1) Matthew Valler Wokingham U.D.C. Norreys (1) Anthea West Wokingham U.D.C. Remenham (1) Kezia Black Wokingham U.D.C. Shinfield South (1) Thomas Blomley Wokingham U.D.C. Wescott (1) David Chapman Wokingham U.D.C. Winnersh (1) Stephen Lloyd Milton Keynes B.C. Olney (1) Catherine Jean Rose Milton Keynes B.C. Stantonbury (1) Alexander Watson Fraser Milton Keynes B.C. Wolverton (1) Jennifer McElvie Marklew South Buckinghamshire B.C.Farnham Royal and Hedgerley (1) Ryan Sains Hastings B.C. Ashdown (1) Gabriel Carlyle Hastings B.C. Baird (1) Al Dixon Hastings B.C.
    [Show full text]
  • Lead Area Local Authorities Covered by Funding Provisional 2020/21
    Lead area Local authorities covered by funding Provisional 2020/21 funding allocation Adur and Worthing £421,578.00 Arun £318,817.00 Ashford £257,000.00 Babergh Babergh and Mid Suffolk (lead) £163,498.00 West Suffolk Barking and Dagenham £184,703.00 Barnet £636,845.00 Barnsley £102,900.00 Basildon £474,871.00 Basingstoke and Deane £199,850.00 Bath and North East Somerset £417,151.00 Bedford £986,915.00 Birmingham £684,666.00 Blackburn with Darwen Hyndburn BC £184,000.00 Ribble Valley BC Burnley BC Pendle BC Rossendale BC Blackpool £200,000.00 Bolton £124,997.00 Boston £385,451.00 Bournemouth, Christchurch and £1,401,333.00 Poole Bracknell Forest £356,141.00 Bradford £461,320.00 Breckland £106,500.00 Brent £827,422.00 Brighton and Hove £2,042,637.00 Bristol, City of £2,814,768.00 Bromley £103,654.00 Broxbourne £119,380.00 Buckinghamshire Aylesbury Vale £576,500.00 Wycombe Chiltern South Bucks Bury £40,000.00 Calderdale £253,945.00 Cambridge £486,457.00 Cambridgeshire County Council £229,500.00 Camden £1,327,000.00 Canterbury £584,739.00 Carlisle (lead for all Cumbrian Allerdale Borough Council £416,340.00 authorities) Barrow Borough Council Carlisle City Council Copeland Borough Council Cumbria County Council Eden District Council South Lakeland District Council Central Bedfordshire £329,938.00 Cheshire East £438,329.30 Cheshire West and Chester £731,034.00 Chichester £230,465.00 City of London £590,300.00 Colchester £296,144.00 Corby East Northamptonshire £113,000.00 Kettering Wellingborough Cornwall £1,696,467.00 County Durham £269,128.35
    [Show full text]
  • Local Authorities Involved in LAD2, Organised Into County Area Consortia for the Purpose of the Scheme
    Local Authorities involved in LAD2, organised into county area consortia for the purpose of the scheme. Bedfordshire Bedford Borough Central Bedfordshire Luton Borough Milton Keynes Berkshire Bracknell Forest Reading Slough West Berkshire Windsor & Maidenhead Wokingham Buckinghamshire Buckinghamshire Council Cambridge Cambridge City East Cambridgeshire District Fenland District Council Huntingdonshire District Peterborough City Council South Cambridgeshire District East Sussex Eastbourne Borough Hastings Borough Lewes District Rother District Council Wealden District Council Essex Basildon Braintree Brentwood Borough Council Castle Point Chelmsford Colchester Epping Forest Harlow Maldon Rochford Southend on Sea Tendring Thurrock Uttlesford District Hampshire Basingstoke & Deane Borough Council East Hampshire District Council Hart District Council Rushmoor Borough Council Test Valley Borough Council Winchester City Council Hertfordshire Broxbourne Borough Dacorum Borough East Herts District Council Hertsmere Borough North Hertfordshire District St Albans City & District Stevenage Borough Three Rivers District Watford Borough Welwyn Hatfield Borough Kent Ashford Borough Council Canterbury City Council Dartford Borough Council Dover District Council Folkestone & Hythe District Council Gravesham Borough Council Maidstone Borough Council Medway Council Sevenoaks District Council Swale Borough Council Thanet District Council Tonbridge & Malling Borough Council Tunbridge Wells Borough Council London Barking & Dagenham Bexley Bromley Camden City
    [Show full text]
  • Name of Report Detail of Report
    Hampshire COVID-19 weekly datapack 4th June 2021 Data correct as of 3rd June 2021 but subject to revision Produced by the Public Health Team and the Insight and Engagement Unit What do weekly case rates per 100,000 population tell us about COVID-19 activity in England? Weekly rate: Week 20, 23rd May 2021 Weekly rate: Week 21, 30th May 2021 Source: Weekly Coronavirus Disease 2019 & Influenza (COVID-19) Surveillance Report Overall case rates increased in week 21. Case rates increased in most ethnic groups and in all age groups and regions. Overall Pillar 1 positivity remained stable while Pillar 2 positivity increased compared to the previous week, most notably in children aged 5 to 9 years. What do weekly case rates tell us about COVID-19 activity across South East regional local authorities? Reproduction number (R) and growth rate of COVID-19, 28th May 2021 Source: The R number in the UK Case rates across the South East have increased in the Reading, Rushmoor, Slough and Reigate & Banstead districts to 50-99.9 per 100,000 population. Cases rates remain below 49.9 per 100,000 population in all other districts. What do weekly cumulative case rates tell us about COVID-19 activity across ceremonial Hampshire? Trends suggest a slowing in the rise of infection rates across ceremonial Hampshire. Portsmouth City Council authority area has the highest cumulative case rate as of the 28th May 2021, although it is lower than the England rate. What do daily cases tell us about how the epidemic is progressing over time in Hampshire? During wave 1 only Pillar 1 (NHS/PHE laboratories) testing was available, this included people admitted to hospital and later people living or working in a health or care environment.
    [Show full text]
  • Hart, Rushmoor and Surrey Heath Water Cycle Study
    Water Submitted to Submitted by East Hampshire District Council AECOM Midpoint Alençon Link Basingstoke Hampshire RG21 7PP United Kingdom Hart, Rushmoor and Surrey Heath Water Cycle Study Final Report May 2017 AECOM Hart, Rushmoor and Surrey Heath WCS Page A-1 Appendix A. Relevant Planning Documents to the WCS Local Authority Category Document Name Publication Relevance Date All Water Blackwater Valley Water Cycle Study Scoping Report 2011 All Environment Thames River Basin District Management Plan (RBMP) 2015 Hart Flood Risk Hart Strategic Flood Risk Assessment November 2016 2016 Rushmoor Flood Risk Rushmoor Borough Council Level 1 SFRA Update 2015 Surrey Heath Flood Risk Surrey Heath SFRA 2015 All Housing Hart, Rushmoor and Surrey Heath Strategic Housing Market 2016 Assessment (SHMA) All Employment Hart, Rushmoor and Surrey Heath Joint Employment Land 2016 Review Surrey Heath Environment Biodiversity and Planning in Surrey 2014 Hart Environment Hart Biodiversity Action Plan 2012 - 2017 2012 Rushmoor Environment Rushmoor Biodiversity Action Plan 2016 - 2021 2016 All Environment Thames Basin Heaths Special Protection Area Delivery 2009 Framework Surrey Heath Water Affinity Water Final Water Resource Management Plan 2015 - 2014 2020 All Water South East Water Water Resource Management Plan 2015 - 2014 2040 All Climate United Kingdom Climate Projections 2009 (UKCP09) 2009 Change All Water Loddon abstraction licensing strategy 2013 Surrey Heath Water Thames abstraction licensing strategy 2014 Hart, Rushmoor and Surrey Heath WCS – Final Report May 2017 AECOM Hart, Rushmoor and Surrey Heath WCS Page B-2 Appendix B. Legislative Drivers Shaping the WCS Directive/Legislation/Guidance Description Birds Directive 2009/147/EC Provides for the designation of Special Protection Areas.
    [Show full text]
  • Easter Meet Open 2018 - 15/04/2018 Results
    Littlehampton Swimming Club HY-TEK's MEET MANAGER 7.0 - 7:05 AM 16/04/2018 Page 1 Easter Meet Open 2018 - 15/04/2018 Results Event 1 Boys 9 Year Olds 200 SC Meter IM Name Age Team Seed Time Finals Time 1 Matthew Lowther 9 Southampton Dolphins SC 3:28.55 3:18.71 41.85 1:26.30 2:33.97 3:18.71 2 Harley Williams 9 Hastings Seagull SC 3:22.39 3:18.85 39.54 1:29.15 2:37.38 3:18.85 3 Oliver Freemantle 9 Alton & District Swimming Club 3:59.00 3:47.59 48.42 1:49.76 2:57.13 3:47.59 --- Michal Urban 9 Mid Sussex Marlins SC 3:35.60 DQ 6.5 Not on the back at finish - back Event 1 Boys 10 Year Olds 200 SC Meter IM Name Age Team Seed Time Finals Time --- Jamie King 10 Fareham Nomads-SE 3:45.82 DQ 9.3 Finish of each stroke not in accordance with rules for the particular stroke - IM Event 1 Boys 11 Year Olds 200 SC Meter IM Name Age Team Seed Time Finals Time 1 George Hayward 11 Seaclose Swimming Club 2:59.93 2:59.14 37.70 1:24.06 2:19.56 2:59.14 2 Max Sydenham 11 Chichester Cormorants Swimming 3:15.75 3:03.96 42.25 1:31.46 2:24.69 3:03.96 3 Alex Beck 11 Worthing SC 3:13.39 3:07.60 40.77 1:27.66 2:26.83 3:07.60 4 Matthew Hull 11 Havant and Waterlooville SC 3:30.83 3:11.25 38.51 1:29.14 2:26.60 3:11.25 5 Freddie Lawler 11 Hastings Seagull SC 3:16.58 3:15.93 45.03 1:30.43 2:28.50 3:15.93 6 George Port 11 Alton & District Swimming Club 3:44.22 3:26.50 50.04 1:41.37 2:42.66 3:26.50 --- Jenson King 11 Romsey and Totton 3:38.40 DQ 9.3 Finish of each stroke not in accordance with rules for the particular stroke - IM Event 1 Boys 12 Year Olds 200 SC Meter IM Name
    [Show full text]
  • Results LC 09 2
    RESULTS SER Masters Senior Age Group Long Course Competition at K2 Crawley on 24th 25th January 2009 Note problems with the electronic timing during the meet meant that not all split times were recorded. MEN 50m Backstroke Key: M = Meet Record, B = British Record, E = European Record 18/24 Yrs Age Group 1 Kevin Pickard 21 Hastings SG M 29.81 2 Jonathan Glenny 19 Saxon Crown 32.87 25/29 Yrs Age Group 1 Josh Williamson 29 Guildford Ct M 32.05 2 Enrico Hahn 28 Otter 33.31 3 Broderick Aramyees 28 Saxon Crown 35.60 4 Andrew Stout 28 Reading 38.54 30/34 Yrs Age Group 1 James Weller 31 Spencer 31.76 2 Burini Correa 31 DDS Milano 33.56 3 Chris Luesley 30 Worthing 35.64 4 Jonathan Gray 31 Dorking 36.66 5 Marco Rovellini 31 DDS Milano 41.35 6 Paul Adams 31 Croydon Amph 41.82 7 Massimo Mondiani 32 DDS Milano 49.37 35/39 Yrs Age Group 1 Paul Allen 37 Boston 31.86 2 Fabio Gramegna 38 DDS Milano 33.69 3 Stephen Irwin 38 Kingston Roy 34.30 4 Nick Alford 36 Maidstone 34.69 5 Adam Harper 38 Brighton 35.27 6 Gavin Watson 38 Rushmoor Ryl 50.54 40/44 Yrs Age Group 1 Grant Robins 40 Royal Navy M 32.54 2 Andy Cook 41 Dorking 34.38 3 Paul French 44 Beckenham 39.09 4 Julian Elliman 41 Crawley 51.47 45/49 Yrs Age Group 1 Guy Emerson 46 Amersham M 32.83 2 Alan Parkins 49 Croydon Amph 35.30 3 John Prowting 48 Croydon Amph 35.71 4 Yon Marsh 49 Sevenoaks 41.54 5 Luca Madini 46 DDS Milano 41.64 50/54 Yrs Age Group 1 of 44 RESULTS SER Masters Senior Age Group Long Course Competition at K2 Crawley on 24th 25th January 2009 1 Carl Mullender 54 Haslemere 37.49 55/59 Yrs
    [Show full text]
  • Local Authorities Adur & Worthing District Council Allerdale Borough
    Local Authorities Adur & Worthing District Council Allerdale Borough Council Amber Valley Borough Council Anglia Revenues Partnership Arun District Council Ashford Borough Council Aylesbury Vale District Council Barnet L.B Barrow-in-Furness Borough Council Basildon District Council Basingstoke & Deane Council Bath & North East Somerset Council Bedfordshire County Council Birmingham City Council Blaby District Council Blackburn District Council Blackburn with Darwen Borough Council Blackpool Borough Council Blaenau Gwent County Council Bolton Council Boston Borough Council Bracknell Forest Borough Council Braintree District Council Brent Council Bridgenorth District Council Brighton & Hove City Council Bristol City Council Bromsgrove District Council Buckinghamshire County Council Burnley Borough Council Caerphilly County Borough Council Cambridge City Council Cambridgeshire County Council Camden L.B Cannock Chase District Council Cheltenham Borough Council Cherwell Valley District Council Chiltern District Council Copeland Borough Council Cornwall Council Cotswold District Council Coventry City Council Croydon L.B Cumbria County Council Dacorum Council Darlington Borough Council Daventry District Council Denbighshire CC Derbyshire County Council Devon County Council Dorset County Council Durham County Council Ealing L.B East Ayreshire Council East Dumbartonshire Council East Hertfordshire Council East Northamptonshire Council East Riding of Yorkshire Council Eastbourne Borough Council Ellesmere Port & Neston Borough Council Enfield L.B
    [Show full text]
  • Council Tax Support Task and Finish Group
    CABINET COUNCIL TAX SUPPORT TASK AND FINISH GROUP COUNCILLOR DIANE BEDFORD (CHAIRMAN) REPORT NO. FIN1934 10 DECEMBER 2019 KEY DECISION: NO COUNCIL TAX SUPPORT SCHEME 2020/21 SUMMARY This report sets out the work undertaken by the Council Tax Support Task and Finish Group to review the Council’s Council Tax Support Scheme (CTSS) and recommends action as follows. RECOMMENDATIONS Cabinet are requested to: 1. Recommend to full council that the existing scheme is continued for 2020/21 2. Note the deliberations and considerations of the Council Tax Support Task and Finish Group in arriving at recommendation 1 above 3. Note that the group have recommended a review of the current CTSS starting in 2020 as a result of the following factors: • As Universal Credit (UC) continues to roll out in Rushmoor there are emerging issues which show that the current CTS scheme is moving away from being compatible with the new benefit • Long Term affordability issues • The current scheme is complex and needs to be easier to administer and easier to understand for residents. 1. BACKGROUND 1.1. Since 1st April 2013 local authorities have been providing their own CTSS to replace the previous national Council Tax Benefit Regulations, which had supported residents with their Council Tax costs. 1.2. Whilst local authorities have the freedom to set their own local schemes, based on local circumstances and needs, local authorities are required to provide pensioners with the same level of support received under the previous national Council Tax Benefit arrangements. 1.3. Accordingly, most local authorities have devised hybrid schemes, whereby those of pensionable age receive up to 100% of their Council Tax bill in support, whilst the maximum level of support for working age customers is typically lower and a range of other local adjustments have been made.
    [Show full text]
  • Diocese of Guildford 2019
    Help for those in Need Crisis Support across the Diocese of Guildford featuring: Page 2 How to Help Homeless People 6 Other Sources of Help 7 Debt Advice 8 Counselling Services 9 Homelessness Useful Contacts / Key agencies 10 Homelessness Reduction Act - Council’s responsibility 14 Foodbanks / Emergency Housing by Borough including: Day Centres / hostels / furniture How to Help Homeless people A Guide of Clergy, Staff and Parishes Leaflet available from www.churchhousingtrust.org.uk The number of homeless people is increasing, and some of them will turn to the local church for help. It can be hard to know how to help because homeless people often have multiple needs, and accessing support services is complicated. The purpose of this guide is to help churches respond to this growing need safely and effectively. There are many reasons why people lose their home. It may be through relationship breakdown, physical or mental illness, debt, addiction, or simply the end of a tenancy. There are also those who grew up in an abusive household or in care, and have never had a truly safe and secure place to call home. Every homeless person is an individual with their own unique story. It is important to show an interest, and listen to them. This guide gives information on helping people at different stages of homelessness: from those about to be evicted, to the long-term rough sleepers who call asking for money. It also gives advice on personal safety, and practical ways in which your church can help. Usually the best way to help someone is to put them in touch with local services.
    [Show full text]
  • Local Government Boundary Commission for England Report No
    Local Government Boundary Commission For England Report No. 4^ 7 LOCAL GOTEEDMHT BOUNDARY OOJMISSION FOR ENGLAND REPORT NO. ^" 3 7 LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNMHY COMMISSIOH FOR ENGLAND CHAIBMAH Mr G J Ellerton CMS MBE IEPTJTT CHATRMAN Sir Wilfred Burns CB CBE MEMBERS Lftdj Ackner Mr T BrockUnk DL Mr D P Harrison Professor G E Cherry T3I1 3T. HCS. PATRICK J2KKIN UP SECRETARY OF STATE ?03 THE EKVI30KK2IT *. In their parish review report subnitted to us on 16 June iV80f Guildford Borough Council suggested changes to parts of ths boundary between the Borough, of Cuildford ?.r.d the Boroughs of Surrey Heath, Poking and Elmbridge, and Districts of Hole Valley and T7averley in the Coi-nty of Surrey, and the Borough of 3ushmoor in the County of Hacipahire in the following parishad and unparished areas:- Ash Parish, Guildford/Surrey Heath Borough Pirbright Parish, Guildford/Surroy Eeath Borough Pirbright Parish, Guildi'ord/tfokinc Borough Ockha-n Parisii, Guildfcrd/Elcbridge Borough Effin^haa Parish, Guildford/r.role Valley District East I'.orsley Parish, Guildford/Abinger Parish, Kole Valley Shere Parish, Guildford/Abinter Parish, Hole Valley Shere Parish, Guildford/Ev/hurst Parish, Vfaverley District Albury Parish, Cuildford/V.'onersh Parish, V/averley r:halfor;l parish, Guildford/Bcamley Parish, TTaverley Shalford Parish, Guildford/Godalming Parish, 77averley Coinpton Parish, Guildford/Godalmir.g Parish, '.V-: verley Shackleford Parish, Guildford/Goclaiming Parish, i7a*/erley ShaclQeford Parish, Guildford/Witley Parish, ";7averley Seale and Tongham Parish, Guildford/Elstead Parisl;, /teverley Seale and Toafjham Parish, GuildTord/Tilford Parish, VTaverley Seale and Tonghaa Parish, Guildford/7averley District Ash Parish, Guilclford, Surrey/Rushooor Borough, Eaapshlre ^ ;2.
    [Show full text]