DOCSLIB.ORG

Professor Steven Broomhead Committee Chief Executive

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Professor Steven Broomhead
Chief Executive

To: Members of the Development Management
Committee

Town Hall
Sankey Street
Warrington WA1 1UH

Councillors: Chair – J Grime P Carey, G Friend, B Maher, T McCarthy, L Morgan, K Mundry, R Purnell, S Wright, J Wheeler, B Barr, S Parish.

22 September 2020 Development Management Committee

Wednesday, 30 September 2020, 6.00pm Venue – This meeting will take place remotely in accordance with the Coronavirus Act 2020 - Section 78

Members of the public can view this meeting by visiting

www.warrington.gov.uk/committees

Agenda prepared by Jennie Cordwell, Senior Democratic Services Officer –

Telephone: (01925) 442139 E-mail: [email protected]

A G E N D A Part 1

Items during the consideration of which the meeting is expected to be open to members of the public (including the press) subject to any statutory right of exclusion.

Item

  • 1.
  • Apologies for Absence

To record any apologies received.

  • 2.
  • Code of Conduct - Declarations of Interest

Relevant Authorities (Disclosable Pecuniary Interests) Regulations 2012

1

Members are reminded of their responsibility to declare any disclosable pecuniary or non-pecuniary interest which they have in any item of business on the agenda no later than when the item is reached.

Item 3.
Page No.
Minutes

4

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 2nd September 2020 as a correct record.

  • 4.
  • Planning Applications

21

Report of the Director of Growth 2018/32247 - FORMER PARKSIDE COLLIERY TO THE EAST OF THE A49, WINWICK ROAD, NEWTON-LE- WILLOWS, WA12 8DB

23

2020/36900 - WARRINGTON ROAD, HATTON, WARRINGTON

285 307

2020/37026 – BRIDGE FARM, DAM LANE, RIXTON WITH GLAZEBROOK, WARRINGTON, WA3 6LE

330 351

2020/36842 – ARLEY LANDFILL SITE, FORREST WAY, WARRINGTON, WA4 6YZ

  • 5.
  • Appeal Decisions Summary

Report of the Director of Growth

Part 2

Items of a “confidential or other special nature” during which it is likely that the meeting will not be open to the public and press as there would be a disclosure of exempt information as defined in Section 100I of the Local Government Act 1972.

Nil

2

Agenda Item 3

DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE
2 September 2020
Present:

Councillor J Grime (Chairman) Councillors P Carey, K Mundry, L, Morgan, G Friend, B Barr, S Parish, and T Jennings (substitute for S Wright)

This meeting was held remotely in accordance with the Coronavirus Act 2020 – Section 78

DM188 Apologies for Absence

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors T McCarthy, S Wright and B Maher.

DM189 Code of Conduct – Declarations of Interest

Councillor B Barr
Minute DM194

  • Reason
  • Action

Former Member of Helena Housing Board who
Remained in the meeting and took part in discussions previously managed and vote the site

  • S Parish
  • DM192 & DM193
  • Ward Member for

area, also had previous contact with applicant for community use of site and also
Stood down from the committee and took no part in the discussions or votes

corresponded with objectors

  • T Jennings
  • DM194
  • Member of the

Torus 62 Board
Stood down from the committee and took no part in the discussions or vote

3

Agenda Item 3

DM190 Minutes

Resolved,
That the minutes of the meeting held on 12 August 2020 were agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman, subject to the following amendment;

DM179 – Code of Conduct – Declaration of Interest

  • S Parish
  • DM182 & 183
  • Member Omega

Partnership Liaison Committee
Remained in the meeting and took part in discussions and vote

DM191 Planning Applications

Resolved,
That Pursuant to the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (As Amended) the applications for permission to develop land be considered and dealt with in the manner agreed.

  • DM192 2020/36670
  • -
  • GULLIVERS WORLD THEME PARK, SHACKLETON CLOSE,

BURTONWOOD AND WESTBROOK, WARRINGTON, WA5 9YZ - Full Planning (Major) - Construction of welcome suite / staff headquarters (300sq.m), pet resort (500sq.m), spa (258sq.m) and facilities building (300sq.m), provision of covered cycle storage (sheffield racks) and change of use to camping/touring caravan site; siting of 5no. double-unit static caravans to form group accommodation; and change of use of existing forestry management building to store/workshop (216sq.m) together with erection of fencing, ground works, provision of hard surfaces and parking areas, drainage infrastructure, hard and soft landscaping and excavation of surface water attenuation pond

The Director of Growth submitted the above report with a recommendation for approval subject to conditions.

Members noted the content of the update report. Members received a further 5 written representations against the application which are detailed as follows;

(1) The pet centre includes stables. Horses should not be permitted as they may attempt to bolt when scared by noise. They would injure themselves, and this facility should be denied.

4

Agenda Item 3
(2) Kennels are notorious for being very noisy as dogs will naturally bark at levels between 90 and 100dB. This is why they are always placed away from residential areas. With 67 holiday chalets and a “tranquillity” spa only metres away, the kennels will cause unacceptable noise levels to guests in the park, and also to local residents. It is noted that the report from WBC Environmental Health (noise) has been included in the conditions imposed on the site.
(3) The layout of the pet centre shows kennels approximately 6ft x 4ft, with no account of different dog sizes. There will be no exercise area other than one outside the kennels. Dogs will be imprisoned and will bark to be let out.
(4) The inclusion of 114 car parking spaces and a range of buildings will have a severe effect on the runoff of rainwater, which is presently taken up by the land and it’s trees before it drains into the watercourse. Petrol interceptors will be essential across the various car park locations, but these are not mentioned.
(5) Cheshire Wildlife Trust objections have not been taken into account, and Woodland
Trust objections have not been fully answered. Those organisations have not been given the opportunity to disagree with the report, and approval should be withheld until they have the opportunity to respond.
(6) The report sees no problem with the additional transport needs, when viewed in isolation. However the existing Cromwell Avenue congestion is already aggravated by new housing estates approved by WBC. There has to be a point where nonessential traffic should be restricted to avoid total gridlock.
(7) The retention pond is no longer as stated in the drainage report, as size has been changed but no calculations of capacity have been given to show the retention capability.
(8) I object in principle to the applications as being unsuited to the area, and unwanted by large numbers of local residents who have taken time to object formally to the plans. The case officer’s report merely lists the objections as one-liners without any attempt to justify whether that are material or not. It is recognised that many of our objections have been addressed by the imposition of conditions, but approval is still recommended rather than rejection pending resubmission. He proposes approval despite the level of local opposition. The Committee should consider the views of their own constituents, rather than approving a dubious plan, with many inconsistencies, which favours the developer whose contribution to rates is a small percentage of rates paid by residents. These applications should be rejected, with instructions to the applicant to review his entire proposal, and submit a plan which is consistent in itself, and complies with all regulations.
(9) I would like to object to this development as it will destroy ancient parts of woodland and also put extra strain on the roads in the area which are too busy anyway.

  • (10)
  • Planning Application Form - Form requires the following information to be

provided: 7. Materials - Does the proposed development require any materials to be used? Yes - Please provide a description of existing and proposed materials and finishes to be used (including type, colour and name for each material): For Roofs, Walls, Windows and Doors the stock answers is: “See Plans and Planning, Design and Access Statement” - I have examined the Drawings and the Design and Access Statement and cannot find any of the information promised by this submitted form.

  • (11)
  • There is no Planning Condition in regarding this, even house extensions require

this information. This provides Gulliver’s World with the ability to do as they please.

5

Agenda Item 3

  • (12)
  • This Planning Permission cannot be granted based on this Report. Documents

Supplied with the Application in March 2020 - Five documents were supplied with the Application which show an intent to deceive in my opinion. Geo-environmental report (Phase I)-Clarke Bond-WB04362 This document was written by a person who has lied about Professional Qualifications. I do not believe that Gulliver’s World were aware of this. Geo-environmental report (Phase II)-Egniol-OS7057. This document does not relate to the Application site and is irrelevant. Himalayan Balsam Management Document was written for different site but has been submitted (verbatim) for this site – It says, “areas of infestation are not directly affected by the development proposals”, which is patently not true – refer Rachel Hacking Report June 2020, which says HB is 80% of ground area = over 20,000 sq metres affected. Document irrelevant – but the Planning Condition requires its use. WBC HB condition is in my objection to 2020/36760 document. Biodiversity Enhancement SchemeRachel Hacking Ecology Document written for another site but has been submitted (verbatim) for this site except that the last page which shows the site plan was removed. Document irrelevant. Arboricultural Method Statement while a method is required, a tree survey is required in accordance with L5 of the Warrington Borough Council - Planning Validation Checklist. The required Arboricultural document was issued on July 14, more than 4 months after the Application was submitted. This document is still not fit for purpose in my view as it deceives on how many trees GW intend felling – they say 20 but it is more than 40. The author (is cited in the document properties) but is he a qualified Arboriculturalist? Woodland Management Plan-Liz Sharkey/Forestry Commission This is referred to by the Applicant in many submission documents, including the Planning Design and Access Statement, Arboricultural Assessment and Method Statement, PEA and Bat Scoping Report, and Applicant’s Agent emails. This, “Forestry Commission Approved Woodland Management Plan” as it is referred in most documents was submitted without the 7 Appendices which have many pertinent details. WBC do not have a copy of this full document, nor the felling license that goes with it. (13) As the spokesperson for the Callands and Westbrook Community Association,
I am advised of the following : The exercise zone for the pet resort lies completely within the minimum legal buffer zone of 15m
(14) The requirement of the zone is ‘No Development’ which includes hard standing to protect root systems, flora and fauna. No due diligence has been applied to this plan.
(15) The WBC environmental health department have not been informed that the
Pet Resort is a commercial kennelling facility. The applicants own SCP report 3.4 & 3.5 confirms it will be open to the public. This is in addition to use by staying guests.
(16) If the kennels are to be open 24/7/365, then fireworks displays will create extreme stress for the occupant animals.
(17) Woodland Trust clarify that we did not refer to the development site as containing ancient woodland within our consultation response (8th April 2020), but simply that land in our ownership was designated on the Ancient Woodland Inventory. As such, it should be noted that our objection was focused on the potential indirect impacts of the application and that we are not suggesting there would be direct loss.

6

Agenda Item 3
(18) Ancient woodland is a material planning consideration within the National
Planning Policy Framework, and the Standing Advice outlines that the effects of development adjacent to ancient woodland should be taken into consideration. As a woodland conservation charity, we seek to protect ancient woods and trees regardless of whether they are within our ownership.
(19) With regards to our recommendations for a 30m buffer zone, this is to account for the nature of the proposals which are to be of considerable scale. Natural England’s Standing Advice is quite clear that a buffer zone should be “at least 15 metres to avoid root damage. Where assessment shows other impacts are likely to extend beyond this distance, you’re likely to need a larger buffer zone.”
(20) Whilst there is an area of secondary woodland between the development site and our land boundary, we ask that the buffer zone is applied from the boundary. This is to reduce the likelihood of trees which form the woodland edge from becoming safety risks from close proximity to users of the development site.
(21) It is noted from the revised Arboricultural Assessment and Method Statement for Site Works that the proposals are compliant with the BS5837:2012, and therefore we assume that all Root Protection Areas (RPA) will be calculated at 12x the stem diameter as the RPA calculations have not been included within the report.
(22) We would like to re-iterate that Natural England’s Standing Advice states that
“a buffer zone around an ancient or veteran tree should be at least 15 times larger than the diameter of the tree. The buffer zone should be 5m from the edge of the tree’s canopy if that area is larger than 15 times the tree’s diameter.” The RPA should not be encroached by any form of development, as outlined in SubClause 7.4 (Permanent hard surfacing within the RPA) of the BS 5837:2012.
(23) It is noted that local objections have been submitted to the planning portal in relation to drainage issues, and the potential effect on our site, Twig/Bog Wood. We do not have the technical expertise to scrutinise these matters, so we would appreciate if the Council could confirm the Environment Agency’s position, and also confirm that the Council has considered the hydrological impacts of the proposals on the adjacent ancient woodland.
(24) To conclude, the Woodland Trust will maintain a holding objection to the proposed development on account of potential impact to our Twig/Bog Wood site and veteran trees.

Members received 3 further written representations supporting the application which are detailed as follows;

(1) Respectfully ask to approach your decision on the applications with an open mind and for you to give significant weight to your professional officer’s well-reasoned, detailed and carefully explained recommendation for a conditional approval of permission.
(2) Your planning officers have, over a period of almost five months, given thorough consideration to the applications before you. In reaching their decision to recommend approval, they have given appropriate weight to relevant planning policies and duly considered the opinions of objectors to the applications,

7

Agenda Item 3 weighing them in the planning balance (to the extent that the views expressed are relevant to planning matters).
(3) The applications are not “EIA development” and where necessary, the cumulative impacts of the developments have been assessed together. However, each site is a separately defined and stand-alone application site area. Each one is capable of implementation individually.
(4) To address any residual concerns, the applicant has provided amended plans which have significantly reduced the scale of development when compared to what was initially proposed. We have also provided additional information requested by consultees and accepted the imposition of stringent conditions to ensure the development proceeds in an environmentally sensitive way and the recommended mitigation measures will be implemented appropriately. Several conditions are ‘prior to commencement’ so as to give the council a secondary layer of control. We will liaise with council officers to discharge the conditions in a timely manner.
(5) Approving the applications would provide the following local benefits in particular: At least 41 directly employed local, long-term jobs for Warringtonians; Assist with the long-term retention of 220+ existing jobs and help the park survive Covid-19; More than £5.5million in construction contracts which will be awarded locally; £1.4million per year in additional spending in the local area (from consumer and additional staff spending, for example, in supermarkets, petrol stations and local restaurants etc); to Enable the continued subsidy of the Burtonwood Heritage Association (£40,000 per year) as well as subsidised use of the Gulliver’s World facilities by local community groups.
(6) There are some specific points which are important to emphasise within the officer’s report: The Principle of the developments is acceptable in this location. Officers recommend that the proposals will have a positive impact upon the Warrington’s visitor and tourism economy and, subject to controls in relation to the environmental impact of the development, they are compliant with policy PV7 of the Local Plan Core Strategy.
(7) The proposal includes the eradication of an invasive plant species, Himalayan
Balsam. The minimum action presently required of the applicant by law is to stop it escaping from the applicant’s land – but in this case, the application proposals will facilitate and fund its programmed eradication from the woodland. This is combined with significant additional tree planting and bird/bat box installations across the two sites. These actions will markedly improve wildlife habitats when compared to the alternative ‘do nothing’ scenario.
(8) There are no unacceptable impacts (on any planning matter) resulting from the proposals. The stipulated conditions will ensure that appropriate prevention, management and mitigation measures are in place to safeguard the wider woodland environment;
(9) The applicant has agreed to a bespoke management plan, to provide further detailed construction drawings/information and to pro-actively engage with the Council to ensure the Environmental Health Officer’s satisfaction with the pet resort building and methods to ensure no adverse noise impacts occur from dogs being kennelled within the pet resort.

8

Agenda Item 3
(10) There is a significant and thick band of retained woodland on southern and eastern site boundaries (i.e. the intervening land between the application site and the Woodland Trust land); this means the buildings are unlikely to be noticed from any public vantage points within Sankey Valley Park. There is no public access to the application sites themselves.
(11) The application proposals have been rigorously assessed by consultees and iteratively re-designed to achieve an acceptable balance. There are no unresolved objections. I would respectfully encourage you to support the officer’s recommendation to approve the applications.
(12) Gulliver’s is a family owned business and has been a proud part of Warrington for over 30 yrs. This proposal is designed to ensure the continued sustainability of the resort and over 220 jobs, particularly in the present and challenging times ahead. Below is a table to detail, the economic & social benefits made possible by the planning proposals.

  • Construction contracts
  • Gulliver’s operates a buy local scheme to

retain the Warrington pound. The proposal has a GDV figure of over £5.5m in locally awarded construction contracts & in-house fabricators.

  • Retention of a primary employer
  • Gulliver’s Warrington employs more than

220 local team members, in both FT and PT roles, 98.8% of which live within 10 miles. This proposal helps to ensure their job security both now and post Covid-19. This provides 41 new directly employed. It is worth £1.4 million per year locally, providing roles within the resort itself and wider local suppliers.
Direct economic benefit & job growth

  • Local economic stimulus
  • An estimate of £1.2m per annum will be

spent locally by guests staying in the new accommodation.
Investment and renewal of existing facilities It will contribute toward funding a planned program of renewal and investment in the existing resort to ensure its long-term effective operation and viability.
Business rates contributions

Recommended publications
  • COVID-19 Weekly Surveillance Tracker 22Nd September 2021 Summary

    COVID-19 Weekly Surveillance Tracker 22Nd September 2021 Summary

    COVID-19 Weekly Surveillance Tracker 22nd September 2021 Summary • The rate of new cases in Wigan is lower than the previous week. • Wigan has the fifth highest rate of new cases in Greater Manchester for the latest complete week (11th-17th September). Wigan currently has the 6th highest total rate in GM. • Wigan is currently ranked 133rd in England. • Wigan is classed as Red for new cases. The outbreak management surge plan has been updated and activated. • The over-60s weekly incidence rate for Wigan is the highest of the 10 Greater Manchester areas. • Wigan is similar to the Greater Manchester average and lower than the North West average for rate of new cases in the latest 7 days. • As at 21st September, there were 19 COVID-positive patients in Wrightington, Wigan and Leigh hospitals. • There have been 2 COVID–19 related deaths registered in Wigan so far in the latest week th (w/e 10 September). Weekly Cases and Rates COVID-19 cases are identified by taking specimens from people and sending them to laboratories around the UK to be tested. If the test is positive, this is a referred to as a lab-confirmed case. Pillar 1 refers to tests that have been carried out in labs run by Public Health England or the NHS (usually for inpatients and frontline workers in the NHS), Pillar 2 refers to tests delivered by commercial partners (usually for the general public). Both Pillar 1 and Pillar 2 results are published. Weekly counts show the total number of events that were reported in the latest seven-day period for which data are considered complete, and the rates per 100,000 population are based on these figures (and the latest population estimates from the Office for National Statistics).
  • Greater Manchester

    Greater Manchester

    Chapter 1 Greater Manchester 1.1 Bolton Left = Left List You = You Party Astley Bridge Farnworth Hilary Fairclough C 2,358 Jim Lord Lab 1,151 Clive Atty LD 733 Tariq Aziz LD 955 Muhammad Rafiq Lab 572 Michelle Ionn C 531 Andy Allen You 138 Bradshaw Great Lever [Lab gain from C] Walter Hall C 2,535 Mohammed Iqbal Lab 1,657 James Cottam Lab 620 Mudasir Dean C 1,299 Lauren Alergant LD 342 Alan Johnson Grn 374 Anne Mumberson Grn 195 Mian Akhtar LD 245 Halliwell Breightmet Cliff Morris Lab 1,875 Arthur Norris C 1,696 Shahid Mahmood C 632 William Gallagher Lab 1,182 Riaz Gul LD 494 Carl Hemmings BNP 350 Stephen Howarth LD 163 Harper Green Norma Armston You 137 Lynne Hyland Grn 74 Champak Mistry Lab 1,181 Bill Dawson C 1,071 David Connor LD 390 Bromley Cross Heaton and Lostock Alan Wilkinson C 2,933 Jeremy Foster Lab 705 Alan Rushton C 3,378 David Wibberley LD 331 John Gillatt Lab 831 Liz Spencer Grn 147 Jonathan Evans LD 326 Andy Openshaw You 141 Daniel Mann Grn 249 Horwich and Blackrod [C gain Crompton [Lab gain from LD] from LD] Hanif Darvesh Lab 1,985 Pat Barrow C 1,469 John Partington C 1,113 Kevan Jones Lab 1,021 Yakub Khoda LD 873 Ian Hamilton LD 869 4 1.2. BURY 5 Consolidated Results — Bolton Conservative . 29,254 41.8% 9 councillors Labour . 22,644 32.4% 7 councillors Liberal Democrat . 14,221 20.3% 4 councillors Green Party .
  • BRIGHTER BOROUGH APRIL 2015 - 31ST JANUARY 2016 Grant / Ward Scheme Or Organisation Description Grant Amount Date Submitted Scheme ID Grant

    BRIGHTER BOROUGH APRIL 2015 - 31ST JANUARY 2016 Grant / Ward Scheme Or Organisation Description Grant Amount Date Submitted Scheme ID Grant

    BRIGHTER BOROUGH APRIL 2015 - 31ST JANUARY 2016 Grant / Ward Scheme Or Organisation Description Grant Amount Date Submitted Scheme ID Grant 244 Abram Scheme N/A due to an increase in litter to provide a bin at Park Lane Abram 340 08/04/15 249 Abram Scheme N/A Supply and installation of a litter bin on Council owned land adjacent to 218 Lily Lane, Bamfurlong. The site has been inspected and approved as suitable by Eddie Baines, Waste supervisor. he has committed to serving the bin 300 24/04/15 on an ongoing basis once installed 253 Abram Scheme N/A Residents have requested a litter bin to be installed down the track adjacent 536 Bolton Road, Bamfurlong. I have liased with the forestry commision who own the land and they approve the installation on their land providing it 413.08 01/05/15 is installed on the forestry Commision fenceline side of the track not on the side of the houses. Cleansing have agreed the location is suitable and agreed to ongoing servicing. ASC 31455 has all the detail. Eddie Baines is aware of the request and should liaise with Duncan McNaughton of thr Forestry Commission before the installation is carried out. His email is [email protected]. the bin is required as there is no where for litter and dog waste bags from residents using the Viridor Wood site? 266 Abram Scheme N/A BB funded for living tree on warrington Rd Spring View. Lights, fencing, paving round the to save on grass cutting. 6140 21/05/15 273 Abram Scheme N/A To place a bin in the car park of Kingsdown Rd Abram.
  • Grant/ Scheme ID Ward Scheme Or Grant Organisation

    Grant/ Scheme ID Ward Scheme Or Grant Organisation

    Grant/ Ward Scheme Or Organisation Description Grant Date Scheme ID Grant Amount Submitted 395 Abram Scheme N/A Provide a litter bin at the junction of Simpkin St / Willow Lodge. 360 17/02/16 442 Abram Scheme N/A Wigan Pride 100 21/06/16 478 Abram Scheme N/A To improve 2 footpaths round Polly Pond at Abram. The main path has been improved and the improvement top these 2 paths will finish off the 1500 18/10/16 scheme 509 Abram Scheme N/A To put in hard standing under a bench at Pollys pond Abram. This will stop water lodging under the bench which is stopping people from using 450 23/11/16 the bench. The time scale will be dependant on the weather. 530 Abram Scheme N/A Supply and install litter bin at Bus Stop situated on Warrington Rd, Abram between School Street and Lee Lane junctions (Golborne bound 360 06/02/17 direction). Site used to have a bin but it was destroyed in an RTC some time ago. 1467 Abram Grant My Tutor Services Ltd Platt Bridge 'Homework Club'. This is a community project aimed at parents and their children. We are looking to arrange free homework 550 15/03/16 sessions for both parents and their children as an affordable and accessible opportunity to work with a qualified teacher and develop study skills, raise confidence and subject knowledge to result in better performances from the children at school and help strengthen relationships between parents and their children and peer to peer (children to their peers).
  • Local Elections Handbook 2008Complete

    Local Elections Handbook 2008Complete

    LOCAL ELECTIONS HANDBOOK 2008 Colin Rallings & Michael Thrasher LOCAL ELECTIONS HANDBOOK 2008 The 2008 Local Election Results Colin Rallings and Michael Thrasher with the assistance of Galina Borisyuk, Brian Cheal, Dawn Cole, Elena Long and Lawrence Ware Local Government Chronicle Elections Centre University of Plymouth Local Elections Handbook 2008 © Colin Rallings and Michael Thrasher 2008 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise without the prior permission of the publishers. Published by the Local Government Chronicle Elections Centre, University of Plymouth, Plymouth PL4 8AA ISBN 978-0-948858-43-7 Distributed by: LGC Information, Greater London House, Hampstead Road, London, NW1 7EJ Table of Contents Acknowledgements .......................................................................................... v Introduction ..................................................................................................... vii Using the Handbook .......................................................................................xix Aggregate Statistics for Local Authorities ......................................................... 1 London Mayor and Assembly Election Results .............................................. 11 Metropolitan Borough Council Election Results ............................................. 29 Unitary Council Election Results ...................................................................
  • HS2 Phase 2B WDES Volume 2 Community Area Reports

    HS2 Phase 2B WDES Volume 2 Community Area Reports

    High Speed Two Phase 2b ww.hs2.org.uk October 2018 Working Draft Environmental Statement High Speed Rail (Crewe to Manchester and West Midlands to Leeds) Working Draft Environmental Statement Volume 2: Community Area report | Volume 2 | MA05 MA05: Risley to Bamfurlong High Speed Two (HS2) Limited Two Snowhill, Snow Hill Queensway, Birmingham B4 6GA Freephone: 08081 434 434 Minicom: 08081 456 472 Email: [email protected] H8 hs2.org.uk October 2018 High Speed Rail (Crewe to Manchester and West Midlands to Leeds) Working Draft Environmental Statement Volume 2: Community Area report MA05: Risley to Bamfurlong H8 hs2.org.uk High Speed Two (HS2) Limited has been tasked by the Department for Transport (DfT) with managing the delivery of a new national high speed rail network. It is a non-departmental public body wholly owned by the DfT. High Speed Two (HS2) Limited, Two Snowhill Snow Hill Queensway Birmingham B4 6GA Telephone: 08081 434 434 General email enquiries: [email protected] Website: www.hs2.org.uk A report prepared for High Speed Two (HS2) Limited: High Speed Two (HS2) Limited has actively considered the needs of blind and partially sighted people in accessing this document. The text will be made available in full on the HS2 website. The text may be freely downloaded and translated by individuals or organisations for conversion into other accessible formats. If you have other needs in this regard please contact High Speed Two (HS2) Limited. © High Speed Two (HS2) Limited, 2018, except where otherwise stated. Copyright in the typographical arrangement rests with High Speed Two (HS2) Limited.
  • Local Election Results 2008

    Local Election Results 2008

    Local Election Results May 2008 Andrew Teale August 15, 2016 2 LOCAL ELECTION RESULTS 2008 Typeset by LATEX Compilation and design © Andrew Teale, 2012. Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.3 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts. A copy of the license is included in the section entitled “GNU Free Documentation License”. This file, together with its LATEX source code, is available for download from http://www.andrewteale.me.uk/leap/ Please advise the author of any corrections which need to be made by email: [email protected] Contents Introduction and Abbreviations9 I Greater London Authority 11 1 Mayor of London 12 2 Greater London Assembly Constituency Results 13 3 Greater London Assembly List Results 16 II Metropolitan Boroughs 19 4 Greater Manchester 20 4.1 Bolton.................................. 20 4.2 Bury.................................... 21 4.3 Manchester............................... 23 4.4 Oldham................................. 25 4.5 Rochdale................................ 27 4.6 Salford................................. 28 4.7 Stockport................................ 29 4.8 Tameside................................. 31 4.9 Trafford................................. 32 4.10 Wigan.................................. 34 5 Merseyside 36 5.1 Knowsley................................ 36 5.2 Liverpool................................ 37 5.3 Sefton.................................. 39 5.4 St Helens................................. 41 5.5 Wirral.................................. 43 6 South Yorkshire 45 6.1 Barnsley................................ 45 6.2 Doncaster............................... 47 6.3 Rotherham............................... 48 6.4 Sheffield................................ 50 3 4 LOCAL ELECTION RESULTS 2008 7 Tyne and Wear 53 7.1 Gateshead............................... 53 7.2 Newcastle upon Tyne........................
  • Final Recommendations - North West Region

    Final Recommendations - North West Region

    Final recommendations - North West region Contents 1. Initial/revised proposals overview p1 6. Sub-region 1: Cumbria p11, recommendations p12 2. Number of representations received p3 7. Sub-region 2: Lancashire p13, recommendations p18 3. Campaigns p5 8. Sub-region 3: Merseyside p20, recommendations p21 4. Major issues p6 9. Sub-region 4: Greater Manchester, the Wirral and Cheshire Greater Manchester p21, recommendations p27 the Wirral p30, recommendations p31 Cheshire p31, recommendations p33 5. Final recommendations p8 Appendix A Initial/revised proposals overview 1. The North West region was allocated 68 constituencies under the initial and revised proposals, a reduction of seven from the existing allocation. In formulating the initial and revised proposals the Commission decided to construct constituencies using the following sub-regions: Table 1A - Constituency allocation Sub-region Existing allocation Allocation under initial Allocation under revised proposals proposals Cumbria 6 5 5 Lancashire 16 14 14 Merseyside (less the 11 10 10 Wirral) Greater Manchester, the 42 39 39 Wirral and Cheshire 2. Under the initial proposals 14 of the existing 75 constituencies were unchanged. The revised proposals retained 13 of the existing constituencies unchanged, (a reduction of one). The theoretical entitlement of 25.37 constituencies in Greater Manchester and 10.34 constituencies in Cheshire meant that both counties had to contain constituencies that crossed their respective county boundaries. Under both sets of proposals it was proposed to have two constituencies ​ that crossed county boundaries. We decided not to propose constituencies that crossed the Greater Manchester ​ boundary in the north with Lancashire. The reasons for this are that there was no requirement for Lancashire to have a 1 constituency that crosses the county boundary with Greater Manchester and, even if this crossing had been proposed it still would be necessary to construct a cross-county constituency between Cheshire and Greater Manchester in the south.
  • Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council Election Results 1973-2012

    Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council Election Results 1973-2012

    Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council Election Results 1973-2012 Colin Rallings and Michael Thrasher The Elections Centre Plymouth University The information contained in this report has been obtained from a number of sources. Election results from the immediate post-reorganisation period were painstakingly collected by Alan Willis largely, although not exclusively, from local newspaper reports. From the mid- 1980s onwards the results have been obtained from each local authority by the Elections Centre. The data are stored in a database designed by Lawrence Ware and maintained by Brian Cheal and others at Plymouth University. Despite our best efforts some information remains elusive whilst we accept that some errors are likely to remain. Notice of any mistakes should be sent to [email protected]. The results sequence can be kept up to date by purchasing copies of the annual Local Elections Handbook, details of which can be obtained by contacting the email address above. Front cover: the graph shows the distribution of percentage vote shares over the period covered by the results. The lines reflect the colours traditionally used by the three main parties. The grey line is the share obtained by Independent candidates while the purple line groups together the vote shares for all other parties. Rear cover: the top graph shows the percentage share of council seats for the main parties as well as those won by Independents and other parties. The lines take account of any by- election changes (but not those resulting from elected councillors switching party allegiance) as well as the transfers of seats during the main round of local election.
  • Local Election Results 2010

    Local Election Results 2010

    General and Local Election Results 2010 Andrew Teale July 26, 2014 2 ELECTION RESULTS 2010 Typeset by LATEX Compilation and design © Andrew Teale, 2013. Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.3 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts. A copy of the license is included in the section entitled “GNU Free Documentation License”. This file is available for download from http://www.andrewteale.me.uk/ Please advise the author of any corrections which need to be made by email: [email protected] Change Log 26 July 2014: Edenthorpe, Kirk Sandall and Barnby Dun ward, Doncaster now correctly shown as Labour gain from Independent. 24 November 2013: Corrected results for Vassall ward, Lambeth (typing error) and Reddish North ward, Stockport (LD candidate incorrectly shown as Labour). 21 November 2013: First version. Contents Introduction and Abbreviations 15 I General Election Results 17 1 General Election Results 2010 18 1.1 Abbreviations . 18 1.2 Results by constituency . 19 1.3 Consolidated Results . 69 II London Boroughs 73 2 North London 74 2.1 Barking and Dagenham . 74 2.2 Barnet . 76 2.3 Brent . 79 2.4 Camden . 83 2.5 Ealing . 86 2.6 Enfield . 89 2.7 Hackney . 91 2.8 Hammersmith and Fulham . 94 2.9 Haringey . 96 2.10 Harrow . 99 2.11 Havering . 102 2.12 Hillingdon . 105 2.13 Hounslow . 108 2.14 Islington .
  • Initial Proposals for New Parliamentary Constituency Boundaries in the North West Region

    Initial Proposals for New Parliamentary Constituency Boundaries in the North West Region

    Initial proposals for new Parliamentary constituency boundaries in the North West region June 2021 Contents Summary 2 Who we are and what we do 2 The 2023 Review 2 Initial proposals 2 What is changing in the North West region? 2 How to have your say 3 1 What is the Boundary Commission for England? 4 2 Background to the 2023 Review 5 The rules in the legislation 6 Timetable for our review 7 Stage one – development of initial proposals 7 Stage two – consultation on initial proposals 8 Stage three – consultation on representations received 8 Stage four – development and publication of revised proposals 9 Stage five – development and publication of the final report and recommendations 9 3 Initial proposals for the North West region 10 Initial Proposals for the Cumbria and Lancashire sub-region 12 Initial Proposals for the Cheshire and Merseyside sub-region 17 Initial proposals in the Greater Manchester sub-region 21 4 How to have your say 25 How can you give us your views? 26 What do we want views on? 27 Appendix: Initial proposals for constituencies, including wards and electorates 28 Glossary 54 Initial proposals for new Parliamentary constituency boundaries in the North West region 1 Summary Who we are and what we do The Boundary Commission for England (BCE) is an independent and impartial non-departmental public body, which is responsible for reviewing Parliamentary constituency boundaries in England. The 2023 Review We have the task of periodically reviewing the boundaries of all the Parliamentary constituencies in England. We are currently conducting a review on the basis of legislative rules most recently updated by Parliament in 2020.
  • Notice of Local Election May 2021

    Notice of Local Election May 2021

    NOTICE OF ELECTION WIGAN METROPOLITAN BOROUGH COUNCIL Election of Ward Councillors for the Wards listed below Wards Number of Ward Wards Number of Ward Councillors to be Councillors to be elected elected Abram One Leigh South One Ashton One Leigh West One Aspull New Springs Whelley One Lowton East One Astley Mosley Common One Orrell Two Atherleigh One Pemberton One Atherton One Shevington with Lower Ground One Bryn One Standish with Langtree One Douglas One Tyldesley One Golborne & Lowton West One Wigan Central One Hindley One Wigan West One Hindley Green One Winstanley One Ince One Worsley Mesnes One Leigh East One 1. Forms of nomination for Ward Elections may be obtained at TOWN HALL, LIBRARY STREET, WIGAN, WN1 1YN from the Returning Officer who will, at the request of an elector for any electoral area prepare a nomination paper for signature. 2. Nomination papers must be delivered to the Returning Officer, TOWN HALL, LIBRARY STREET, WIGAN, WN1 1YN on any day after the date of this notice but no later than 4 pm on Thursday, 8th April 2021. 3. If any election is contested the poll will take place on Thursday, 6th May 2021. 4. Applications to register to vote must reach the Electoral Registration Officer by 12 midnight on Monday 19 April 2021. Applications can be made online: https://www.gov.uk/register-to-vote. 5. Applications, amendments or cancellations of postal votes and amendments or cancellations of proxy votes must reach the Electoral Registration Officer at TOWN HALL, LIBRARY STREET, WIGAN, WN1 1YN by 5 pm on Tuesday, 20th April 2021.