DOCSLIB.ORG

Initial Proposals for New Parliamentary Constituency Boundaries in the South East Region Contents

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
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. constituencies in England. We are currently conducting a review on the basis of rules In Berkshire, two of the eight existing set by Parliament in 2011. The rules tell constituencies are unchanged, while four are us that we must make recommendations changed only by the transfer of one ward. for new Parliamentary constituency boundaries in September 2018. They In Brighton and Hove, East Sussex, also result in a significant reduction in Kent, and Medway, two of the 25 existing the number of constituencies in England constituencies are unaltered and one is (from 533 to 501), and require that every reconfigured slightly due to rewarding. constituency – apart from two specified A further four are altered only by the exceptions – must have an electorate that transfer of one ward. is no smaller than 71,031 and no larger than 78,507. In Buckinghamshire and Milton Keynes, one of the seven existing constituencies is Initial proposals unchanged. We published our initial proposals for In Hampshire, Portsmouth, and the new Parliamentary constituency Southampton, three of the 18 existing boundaries in England on 13 September constituencies are unaltered, while a 2016. Information about the proposed further four are altered only by the transfer constituencies is now available on our of one ward. website. In the County of Oxfordshire, one of the What is changing in the six existing constituencies is unchanged, South East? while one is changed only by the transfer of one ward. The South East region has been allocated 83 constituencies – a reduction of one from In Surrey, five of the existing 11 the current number. constituencies are unaltered, while three of the remaining six are altered only by the transfer of one ward. Initial proposals for new Parliamentary constituency boundaries in the South East region 3 Sub-region Existing allocation Proposed allocation Berkshire 8 8 Brighton and Hove, East Sussex, Kent, and Medway 25 24 Buckinghamshire and Milton Keynes 7 7 Hampshire, Portsmouth and Southampton 18 17 Isle of Wight 1 2 Oxfordshire 6 6 Surrey 11 11 West Sussex 8 8 In West Sussex, one of the existing eight We further propose two constituencies that constituencies is unchanged and one is contain electors from Kent, and Medway. reconfigured slightly due to rewarding. One crosses the boundary at Higham, A further five are changed only by the combining it with Rochester, and the other transfer of one ward. at Chatham, combining it with East and West Malling. As it has not always been possible to allocate whole numbers of constituencies How to have your say to individual counties, we have grouped some county and local authority areas We are consulting on our initial proposals into sub-regions. The number of for a 12-week period, from 13 September constituencies allocated to each sub-region 2016 to 5 December 2016. We encourage is determined by the electorate of the everyone to use this opportunity to help combined local authorities. us shape the new constituencies – the more views we hear, the more informed our Consequently, it has been necessary to decisions will be when considering whether propose some constituencies that cross to revise our proposals. county or unitary authority boundaries. Our website at www.bce2018.org.uk has We have proposed one constituency more information about how to respond that contains electors from Brighton and as well as details of where and when we Hove, and East Sussex; it crosses the will be holding public hearings in your boundary on the south coast, combining area. You can also follow us on Twitter the east of the City of Brighton and Hove @BCE2018 or using #2018boundaryreview. with Newhaven and Seaford. We propose one constituency that contains electors from East Sussex and Kent; it crosses the boundary at The Weald, combining the towns of Crowborough and Tenterden. 4 Boundary Commission for England 1 What is the Boundary Commission for England? 1 The Boundary Commission for England (BCE) is an independent and You can find further information on our impartial non-departmental public body website, at www.bce2018.org.uk. You which is required to review Parliamentary can also contact us with any general constituency boundaries in England. We enquiries by emailing information@ conduct a review of all the constituencies boundarycommissionengland.gov.uk, in England every five years. Our role is to or by calling 020 7276 1102. make recommendations to Parliament for new constituency boundaries. 2 The Chair of the Commission is the Speaker of the House of Commons, but by convention he does not participate in the review. The current Deputy Chair, Mrs Justice Patterson, and two further Commissioners, take decisions on proposals and recommendations for new constituency boundaries. Further information about the Commissioners can be found on our website.1 1 At www.bce2018.org.uk Initial proposals for new Parliamentary constituency boundaries in the South East region 5 2 Background to the 2018 Review 3 We are currently conducting a review 5 This is a significant change to the old of Parliamentary constituency boundaries rules under which Parliamentary boundary on the basis of rules set by Parliament in reviews took place, in which achieving as 2011. 2 These rules require us to reduce the close to the average number of electors number of constituencies in the UK and in each constituency was an aim, but make more equal the number of electors in there was no statutory fixed permissible each constituency. This report covers only range. For example, in England, existing the work of the Boundary Commission for constituencies (drawn under the previous England (there are separate Commissions rules) currently range from 54,232 to for Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales) 105,448 electors. Furthermore, the current and, in particular, introduces our initial constituencies were constructed under the proposals for the South East region. last completed review, which relied on the data contained in the electoral registers for 4 The rules set out in the legislation 2000 and applied the earlier version of the state that there will be 600 Parliamentary rules. Achieving a more even distribution constituencies covering the UK – of electors in every constituency across a reduction of 50 from the current England, together with the reduction in number. This means that the number of the total number of constituencies, means constituencies in England must be reduced that a significant amount of change to the from 533 to 501. There are also other existing map of constituencies is inevitable. rules that the Commission has regard to when conducting the review – a full set 6 Our Guide to the 2018 Review of the rules can be found in our Guide to contains further detailed background the 2018 Review3 published in summer information, and explains all the policies 2016, but they are also summarised later and procedures that we are following in in this chapter. Most significantly, the rules conducting the review. We encourage require every constituency we recommend anyone wishing to be involved in the review (with the exception of two covering the Isle to read this document, which will give them of Wight) to contain no fewer than 71,031 a greater understanding of the rules and electors and no more than 78,507. constraints placed on the Commission, especially if they are intending to comment on our initial proposals. 2 The Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011, available at www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2011/1/contents 3 Available at www.bce2018.org.uk and at all places of deposit Initial proposals for new Parliamentary constituency boundaries in the South East region 7 The rules in the legislation 9 Although the first review under the new rules will unavoidably result in 7 As well as the primary rule that significant change, we have also taken constituencies must have no fewer than into account the boundaries of existing 71,031 electors and no more than 78,507, constituencies so far as we can. We have the legislation also states that, when tried to retain existing constituencies deciding on boundaries, the Commission as part of our initial proposals wherever may also take into account: possible, as long as the other factors can also be satisfied.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • PER WG 260601.Doc AGENDA
    N O T I C E O F M E E T I N G PERIODIC ELECTORAL REVIEW WORKING GROUP will meet on TUESDAY 26 JUNE 2001 At 8.00 pm in MEETING ROOM 'A', TOWN HALL, ST. IVES ROAD, MAIDENHEAD TO: ALL MEMBERS OF THE PERIODIC ELECTORAL REVIEW WORKING GROUP (For action) COUNCILLORS LAWRENCE (CHAIRMAN), MRS BATESON (VICE-CHAIRMAN), BURBAGE, MRS ENDACOTT, MRS GLIKSTEN, MRS KEMP, OLNEY, MRS QUICK, WERNER AND WILES. c.c. Chief Executive, Borough Secretary, Andrew Scott, Rob Curtis and Sue Goddard. Barry Morfett Head of Corporate Administration Issued: Tuesday 26th June 2001 BJM/ag mins reps/PER WG 260601.doc AGENDA PART I ITEM SUBJECT WARD PAGE NO 1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE To receive any apologies for absence. 2. AREAS FOR RECONSIDERATION To look further at certain areas as requested by Members at the last meeting viz:- Ascot, Sunninghill and Sunningdale Cookham/Bisham Cox Green/Woodlands Park and Hurley Windsor Urban Area Maidenhead Urban Area NB. The proposals submitted by the Liberal Democrat Group have been summarised in the above report. Details of their proposals have been attched as an Appendix. BJM/ag mins reps/PER WG 260601.doc 2. AREAS FOR RECONSIDERATION At the Working Group meeting on 21 June, it was agreed that further consideration should be given to detailed options provided by Members of the Working Group in relation to the following areas:- Ascot, Sunninghill and Sunningdale Cookham and Bisham Cox Green, Woodlands Park and Hurley Windsor Urban Area Maidenhead Urban Area Members will recall that at the meeting on 21 June, the officers provided proposals for each of the areas in question and the following report provides details not only of the proposals originally but also the options supplied by individual Members.
    [Show full text]
  • F!13Il-.-.; A:: It: Identification of Littoral Cells
    Journal of Coastal Research 381-400 Fort Lauderdale, Florida Spring 1995 Littoral Cell Definition and Budgets for Central Southern England Malcolm J. Bray, David J. Carter and Janet M. Hooke Department of Geography University of Portsmouth Portsmouth, POI 3HE, England ABSTRACT . BRAY, M.J.; CARTER, D.J., and HOOKE, J.M., 1995. Littoral cell definition and budgets for central southern England. Journal of Coastal Research, 11(2),381-400. Fort Lauderdale (Florida), ISSN 0749­ ,tllllllll,.e 0208. Differentiation of natural process units is promoted as a means of better understanding the interconnected . ~ ~ - nature of coastal systems at various scales. This paper presents a new holistic methodology for the f!13Il-.-.; a:: it: identification of littoral cells. Testing is undertaken through application to an extensive region of central ... bJLt southern England. Diverse sources of information are compiled to map 8. detailed series of local sediment circulations both at the shoreline and in the offshore zone. Cells and sub-cells are subsequently defined by thorough examination of the continuity of sediment transport pathways and by identification of boundaries where there are discontinuities. Important distinctions are made between the nature and stability of different boundaries and a classification of types is devised. Application of sediment budget analysis to major process units helps to clarify the regional significance of different sediment sources, stores and sinks. Within the study area, it is shown that sediments circulate from distinct eroding cliff sources to well defined sinks. Natural beaches are transient and dependent upon the continued functioning of supply pathways from cliff sources. Relict cells with residual circulations are identified as a consequence of interference.
    [Show full text]
  • Community Infrastructure Levy
    WINCHESTER CITY COUNCIL COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE LEVY INFRASTRUCTURE STATEMENT July 2013 Infrastructure Statement Introduction The Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 (as amended) require the City Council to submit “copies of the relevant evidence” to the examiner. The purpose of this statement is to set out the City Council’s evidence with regard to the demonstration of an infrastructure funding gap, confirmation of the Council’s spending priorities (the draft list), and clarification of its approach in respect of S106 contributions. The City Council is also seeking to comply with the Government’s Community Infrastructure Levy Guidance (April 2013) which sets out the more detailed requirements in respect of the funding gap at paragraphs 12 -14, and of the prioritisation and funding of infrastructure at paragraphs at 84 - 91. In respect of the latter, the principal aim of this statement is to provide transparency on what the Council, as a charging authority, intends to fund in whole or in part through the levy, and those known matters where S106 contributions may continue to be sought (CIL Guidance, paragraph 15). Infrastructure Funding Gap The Government’s CIL Guidance states: • “A charging authority needs to identify the total cost of infrastructure that it desires to fund in whole or in part from the levy” (paragraph 12); • “Information on the charging authority area’s infrastructure needs should be directly related to the infrastructure assessment that underpins their relevant plan.” (paragraph. 13); • “In determining the size of its total or aggregate infrastructure funding gap, the charging authority should consider known and expected infrastructure costs and the other sources of possible funding available to meet those costs.” (paragraph 14).
    [Show full text]
  • Sexual Health Introduction This Constitutes the Full Section on Sexual Health for the Adults’ JSNA 2016
    For feedback, please contact [email protected] Last updated 4-Apr-16 Review date 30-Apr-17 Sexual Health Introduction This constitutes the full section on Sexual Health for the Adults’ JSNA 2016. ‘Sexual health is a state of physical, mental and social well-being in relation to sexuality. It requires a positive and respectful approach to sexuality and sexual relationships, as well as the possibility of having pleasurable and safe sexual experiences, free of coercion, discrimination and violence.’1 Who’s at risk and why? According to the National Survey of Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles Surveys (Natsal)2,3 sexual health behaviour of the population of England has changed since the survey was first undertaken in 1991. The 2011 Natsal survey demonstrated an increase in the: number of sexual partners over a person’s lifetime, particularly for women, where this has increased from 3.7 (1991) to 7.7 (2011) sexual repertoire of heterosexual partners, particularly with oral and anal sexual intercourse All sexually active individuals of all ages are at risk of sexually transmitted infections (STIs), including HIV, and unplanned pregnancies (in the fertile years). However, the risks are not equally distributed amongst the population, with certain groups being at greater risk. Poor sexual health may also be associated with other poor health outcomes. Those at highest risk of poor sexual health are often from specific population groups, with varying needs which include: Men who have sex with men (MSM) Young people who are more likely to become re-infected with STIs Some black and ethnic minority groups Sex workers Victims of sexual and domestic abuse Other marginalised or vulnerable groups, including prisoners Nationally, there is a correlation between STIs and deprivation.
    [Show full text]
  • T Clandon Parish Council
    CLANDON PARISH COUNCIL ChairmanWE, : ;T Mr Terence Patrick , Stoney Royd, Woodstock, West Clandon, Guildford, GU4 7UJ Clerk: Mr John Stone, Hunters End, Lime Grove, West Clandon, Guildford GU4 7UT 01483 385187: [email protected] : www.westclandon.org.uk Tracy Coleman Director of Planning and Regeneration Guildford Borough Council Millmead House Millmead Guildford, Surrey GU24BB 13'*^ March 2019 Dear Ms Coleman, Application for Designation of the Civil Parish of West Clandon as a Neighbourhood Area. In accordance with the provisions of the Localism Act 2011 and the Neighbourhood Planning (General) Regulations 2012 Section 5, West Clandon Parish Council formally apply to Guildford Borough Council as the Planning Authority to designate the Civil Parish of West Clandon as a Neighbourhood Area, in accordance with Regulation 5 of the Neighbourhood Planning (General) Regulations 2012 ("The Regulations"). Map- Attached herewith is a map showing the Civil Parish of West Clandon as required by the Regulations. The Regulations also require the following two statements in support of this application. Statement 1 Why the Parish of West Clandon is appropriate to be designated as a Neighbourhood Area. The Village of West Clandon is at the heart of the Parish located in the County of Surrey four miles to the East of Guildford. The Parish Council has been in continuous operation since 1889 and is one of 24 parishes within the Borough of Guildford. At the last census the population was recorded as 1363. Significant development is proposed both within the parish boundaries and adjacent areas under the auspices of the Guildford Local Plan. The Parish Council wishes to play an active role in ensuring new developments are well planned and integrated into the local area and serve the interests of residents.
    [Show full text]
  • Report Title: Horton and Wraysbury Neighbourhood Plan Decision To
    Report Title: Horton and Wraysbury Neighbourhood Plan decision to proceed to referendum Contains Confidential or No - Part I Exempt Information? Member reporting: Councillor Coppinger, Lead Member for Planning & Maidenhead Meeting and Date: Cabinet - 31 October 2019 Responsible Officer(s): Russell O'Keefe, Executive Director Wards affected: Horton and Wraysbury REPORT SUMMARY 1. This report seeks approval from Cabinet for the Horton and Wraysbury Neighbourhood Plan to proceed to referendum at the earliest practicable opportunity. 2. The Neighbourhood Plan has been formally examined by an independent examiner, and a number of changes have been recommended by the examiner to ensure that the plan meets the basic conditions. 3. The cost of the referendum can be claimed back from the government up to a cap of £20,000. 1. DETAILS OF RECOMMENDATION(S) RECOMMENDATION: That Cabinet notes the report and: i) Confirms that the plan meets the Basic Conditions tests and an SEA is not required. ii) Accepts the proposed changes to the Neighbourhood Plan set out in Appendix B. a. Gives delegated authority to the Head of Planning (or person acting as Interim Head of Planning) to issue a decision statement; and b. agrees to put the modified Neighbourhood Plan to referendum. The date of the referendum to be set in accordance with the legal requirements; and iii) Delegates authority to the Head of Planning (or Interim Head of Planning), in consultation with the Lead Member for Planning, to make minor, non material, amendments to the Neighbourhood Plan prior to the referendum being announced. iv) The LPA will provide advance funding up to £20,000, if required, for the referendum; this will then be claimed back from Government.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • Bedfordshire and Its Boundaries with Buckinghamshire and Cambridge- Shire
    CoPV ort No. 566 B evtew_oiJNpn-Metropol itan Counties COUNTY OF BEDFORDSHR AND ITS BOUNDARIES WITH : BUCKINGHAMSH R t AND CAMBRIDGESHIR LOCAL GOVERNlfEST BOUNDARY COMMISSION f'OIt ENGLAND REPORT NO. LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND CHAIRMAN Mr G J Ellerton CMC MBE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN Mr J G Powell CBE PRICS FSVA Members Professor G E Cherry BA FRTPI PRICE Mr K F J Ennals CB Mr G R Prentice Mrs H R V Sarkany Mr B Scholes OBE THE RT HON NICHOLAS RIDLEY MP SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE ENVIRONMENT REVIEW OF NON METROPOLITAN COUNTIES THE COUNTY OF BEDFORDSHIRE AND ITS BOUNDARIES WITH BUCKINGHAMSHIRE AND CAMBRIDGE- SHIRE COMMISSION'S FINAL REPORT AND PROPOSALS INTRODUCTION 1. On 26 July 1985 we wrote to Bedfordshire County Council announcing our intention to undertake a review of the County under section 48{1) of the Local Government Act 1972. Copies of the letter were sent to the principal local authorities, and parishes, in Bedfordshire and in the surrounding counties of Buckinghamshire, Cambridgeshire, Hertfordshire and Northamptonshire; to the National and County Associations of Local Councils; to the Members of Parliament with constituency interests and to the headquarters of the main political parties. In addition, copies were sent to those government departments, regional health authorities, water authorities, and electricity and gas boards which might have an interest, as well as to British Telecom, the English Tourist Board, the local government press and to local television and radio stations serving the area. 2. The County Councils were requested, in co-operation as necessary with the other local authorities, to assist us in publicising the start of the review by inserting a notice for two successive weeks in local newspapers so as to give a wide coverage in the areas concerned.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • Neighbourhoods in England Rated E for Green Space, Friends of The
    Neighbourhoods in England rated E for Green Space, Friends of the Earth, September 2020 Neighbourhood_Name Local_authority Marsh Barn & Widewater Adur Wick & Toddington Arun Littlehampton West and River Arun Bognor Regis Central Arun Kirkby Central Ashfield Washford & Stanhope Ashford Becontree Heath Barking and Dagenham Becontree West Barking and Dagenham Barking Central Barking and Dagenham Goresbrook & Scrattons Farm Barking and Dagenham Creekmouth & Barking Riverside Barking and Dagenham Gascoigne Estate & Roding Riverside Barking and Dagenham Becontree North Barking and Dagenham New Barnet West Barnet Woodside Park Barnet Edgware Central Barnet North Finchley Barnet Colney Hatch Barnet Grahame Park Barnet East Finchley Barnet Colindale Barnet Hendon Central Barnet Golders Green North Barnet Brent Cross & Staples Corner Barnet Cudworth Village Barnsley Abbotsmead & Salthouse Barrow-in-Furness Barrow Central Barrow-in-Furness Basildon Central & Pipps Hill Basildon Laindon Central Basildon Eversley Basildon Barstable Basildon Popley Basingstoke and Deane Winklebury & Rooksdown Basingstoke and Deane Oldfield Park West Bath and North East Somerset Odd Down Bath and North East Somerset Harpur Bedford Castle & Kingsway Bedford Queens Park Bedford Kempston West & South Bedford South Thamesmead Bexley Belvedere & Lessness Heath Bexley Erith East Bexley Lesnes Abbey Bexley Slade Green & Crayford Marshes Bexley Lesney Farm & Colyers East Bexley Old Oscott Birmingham Perry Beeches East Birmingham Castle Vale Birmingham Birchfield East Birmingham
    [Show full text]
  • 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
    [Show full text]
  • 02/00866/Min Waste Management Facility
    02/00866/MIN WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITY INCLUDING MATERIALS RECOVERY, COMPOSTING , BIOLOGICAL WASTE TREATMENT, ENERGY RECOVERY, CONTINUED LANDFILL AND ASSOCIATED CLAY EXTRACTION, ACCESS ROAD, VISITOR CENTRE, CAR PARKING, RAIL ACCESS, RAIL SIDINGS, RAIL RECEPTION AREA, RAIL CONTAINER LOADING AND UNLOADING PLANT AND RAIL CONTAINER STORAGE AREA AT Bletchley Landfill Site, Bletchley Road, Newton Longville FOR Shanks Waste Services Limited The Proposal Planning permission is being sought for an Integrated Waste Management Facility to be sited at Bletchley Landfill Site. The proposal includes facilities for materials recovery from waste, buildings for composting and other biological treatment, plant for the recovery of energy from residential waste through thermal treatment, a research and development complex, a visitor centre, continued landfill and associated day working, a new road access connecting to the Stoke Hammond bypass when constructed, offices and car parking, a new rail access and rail reception area comprising a rail spur from the Bletchley to Oxford line, rail sidings and an associated area for container loading, unloading and storage. The Application Site The application site extends to 155 hectares as the development site includes the existing landfill site. The final landform of the landfill site would be altered from that recently given planning permission to enable the proposed waste management facility to be sited at the lowered ground level within the former brick clay pit. The application site straddles the boundary of this authority and Buckinghamshire County Council. The parts of the application comprising the composting facility, the rail reception area and the southern part of the new access road would, therefore, fall to Buckinghamshire County Council to determine.
    [Show full text]