DOCSLIB.ORG

Nottingham City Council Response to the Local Government Boundary

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Nottingham City Council Response to the Local Government Boundary Nottingham City Council Response to the Local Government Boundary Commission for England draft recommendations on new electoral arrangements for the City of Nottingham 1 Contents Page Executive Summary 3 1. Introduction 4 2. Draft Recommendations of the LGBCE 4 3. Considerations informing our revised Warding Proposal 6 4. Summary of Counter Proposals to LGBCE Draft Electoral Arrangements 9 5. Detailed Counter Proposals: 5.1 Castle Ward and Radford Ward 13 5.2 Clifton East and Clifton West Wards 18 5.3 Hyson Green & Arboretum Ward 22 5.4 Meadows Ward 26 6. Conclusion 30 Appendices: Appendix 1: Nottingham City Council – Current Warding Arrangement 31 Appendix 2: Summary of LGBCE Proposals and NCC response 32 Appendix 3: Potential Cost to Nottingham City Council of LGBCE Draft 33 Recommendations Appendix 4: Equality Impact Assessment on LGBCE proposals Appendix 5: Equality Impact Assessment on Nottingham City Council proposals 2 Executive Summary i) This proposal is a response to the Local Government Boundary Commission for England (“LGBCE”) Draft Recommendations for Nottingham City, published on 31st October 2017. ii) Like the LGBCE, the Council supports the proposal for 55 Councillors, but across 20 three and two member wards rather than the 23 wards proposed by the LGBCE. iii) The City Council is proposing a warding pattern of 15 wards represented by three- members and 5 wards represented by two-members. Our counter proposal accepts 15 of the ward boundaries proposed by the LGBCE and seeks to bring together the remaining boundaries suggested by the LGBCE to maintain the important principle of multi member wards. iv) Our proposed warding pattern meets the commission’s statutory criteria in respect of improving electoral equality, representing community identities and interests and providing for convenient and effective local government. Our proposals also address the issues that prompted the review of electoral equality in Nottingham City. v) The response focuses on those wards where the City Council feels it can offer a better alternative than that put forward in the LGBCE’s recommendations, whilst also meeting the statutory criteria. vi) The LGBCE has made a set of proposals based on the responses to their original consultation. Of a voting population of 221,915, a total of just 24 responses were received. 2 of these were not relevant to the consultation. 18 argue for minimal change and multi-member wards, 5 call for small changes to a specific ward and 3 call for wholesale change. In response, the LGBCE’s proposals are significantly different from the current arrangements and for one constituency, Nottingham South, arguably constitute wholesale change. It is difficult to see how this is justified given the original consultation responses. vii) Nottingham City Council believes that the LGBCE’s original proposals, where they constitute significant change, will be expensive, damage partnership working and community cohesion and are significantly less effective and convenient than the current arrangements. For this reason, the City Council proposes changes to the LGBCE recommendations as it relates to the City, the Park, Arboretum, New Meadows, Embankment, Hyson Green, Clifton North and South, while accepting those proposals offering no or minimal change on the current arrangements. 3 viii) In proposing an increase in the number of wards, the LGBCE’s proposals will add significantly to the cost of delivering local government services. These proposals are therefore disruptive and costly at a time when local government budgets are under extreme financial pressure. For example, by creating additional wards, there will be need for extra staff and additional polling arrangements. As a minimum, this would cost the local authority £126,000 a year, and up to £142,830 (additional information in appendix 3). ix) The LGBCE’s proposals will also affect the successful area-working model in Nottingham, which has been adopted by partners including the Police and NHS. We have strong local partnerships, which have aligned their services around the existing City Council ward boundaries and demonstrated effective working matched to local need and communities. Disrupting these working arrangements will be costly and will impact citizens who access these services. Partners will have to change their working practices to accommodate the new ward boundaries. Wholesale change will mean local people having to get used to new boundaries, and will disrupt the existing services, including the voluntary and community sector, who already work in partnership along existing boundaries lines. There is little evidence of any appetite amongst residents for this level of disruption and change. x) Nottingham is a diverse city, where the City Council, Councillors, Communities and Partners have worked hard to deliver community cohesion. The LGBCE’s proposals would undermine this work, segregating wards based on demography, income and housing tenure. This is particularly the case where single member wards are proposed and in Clifton. An additional unintended consequence of this approach is that a number of the single member wards now appear to divide communities along ethnic lines. xi) Larger wards which are represented by more than one councillor provide the most effective and convenient local government. By having ward boundaries which span different communities, wards can better reflect Nottingham’s diverse communities. This encourages councillors to balance the differing needs of the communities they serve in their decision making. Applying this principle at a ward level helps councillors to take the same approach when considering city wide issues. By contrast, small, single member wards segregated by housing tenure, demography or income, and inadvertently by race, potentially promote conflict and damages community cohesion. xii) Nottingham City Council’s response to the LGBCE’s draft recommendations seeks to maintain multi-member wards in the City. This was the preferred option of 18 of the 24 responses received by the LGBCE and is consistent with the views of a significant majority in favour of minimal change. xii) Multi-member wards have a number of advantages over single member wards. These include: 4 Multi-member wards ensure there is capacity to provide effective and convenient local government. In single member wards, inevitably there are times when a councillor is unavailable to the electorate they represent, whether that be short-term absence due to personal, work or holiday commitments or long-term absence due to maternity or enforced leave, for example due to ill- health, maternity or care responsibilities. Multi member wards ensure that the wards electorate can contact a representative most, if not all, of the time. Single member wards could leave communities unrepresented. Voters in single member wards have no choice about who can represent their views or argue their case within the Council. In multi-member wards, if a constituent disagrees with the councillor’s views, they have an alternative representative to talk to and seek help from. This can be particularly important in diverse communities or where, for example, a constituent would prefer to talk to a woman or someone with similar life experience to them. xiv) Nottingham City Council notes that the LGBCE has not completed an Equality Impact Assessment on their proposals, and so has included one in this report, as well as a separate EIA on the City Council’s proposals. xv)The proposals set out in this response were formally endorsed by Nottingham City Council at a meeting of Full Council on 22nd January 2018. 5 1. Introduction 1.1 This document sets out Nottingham City Council’s counter proposals in response to the LGBCE’s consultation on its draft recommendations for warding in Nottingham City. 1.2 In July 2016, the LGBCE wrote to the Chief Executive to advise that Nottingham would be subject to an electoral review. In November 2016, representatives of the LGBCE met with the Chief Executive and Deputy Leader of Nottingham City Council to agree the process and timetable for the review. All Councillors were briefed by the LGBCE at a session on 16th January 2017. 1.3 Following this, and in line with the LGBCE’s timetable for the review, the City Council submitted its view on preferred Council Size, recommending the current council size of 55 Councillors is maintained, which was accepted by the LGBCE. 1.4 Nottingham City Council also submitted its own proposed warding pattern for the city on 12th September 2017, in response to the LGBCE consultation on warding in Nottingham. 1.5 The LGBCE received 24 responses to their initial consultation, from a voting population of 221,915. Of those 24 responses, 2 were not relevant to the consultation, 18 argued for multi-member wards and minimal change, 5 for minor changes in particular wards and 3 for wholesale change. In view of the LGBCE’s draft recommendations following that consultation, the City Council believes the pattern of wards recommended in this counter proposal is the most appropriate to meet the LGBCE’s statutory criteria for the review, which are: In response to this consultation, the LGBCE proposed an increase in the number of wards to 23 and significant changes, mainly across the Nottingham South constituency. Delivering electoral equality for local voters Maintaining the interests and identities of local communities in the city Providing for effective and convenient local government for Nottingham. 2. Draft Recommendations of the LGBCE 2.1 The LGBCE are inviting responses to their provisional recommendations for a pattern of 23 wards in the city, an increase of three wards on the current warding arrangements. 2.2 Their draft proposals breakdown as follows: Three-member wards: 14 Two-member wards: 4 Single member wards: 5 6 Total number of proposed wards: 23 2.3 The following wards are identical in both the original NCC proposal and the draft recommendations from the LGBCE:- Bestwood, Bulwell, Bulwell Forest, Wollaton West On that basis, the City Council are not proposing to respond further in relation to these wards.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Chapter One: Introduction 1
    Feminism, citizenship and social activity: The role and importance of local women’s organisations, Nottingham 1918-1969 Samantha Clements, B.A., M.A. Thesis submitted to the University of Nottingham for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy January 2008 ABSTRACT This local study of single-sex organisations in Nottingham and Nottinghamshire is an attempt to redress some of the imbalanced coverage given to this area of history thus far. A chronological study, it examines the role, importance and, to some extent, impact of a wide range of women’s organisations in the local context. Some were local branches of national organisations, others were specifically concerned with local issues. The local focus allows a challenge to be made to much current thought as to the strength of a “women’s movement” in the years between the suffrage movement and the emergence of a more radical form of feminism in the 1970s. The strength of feminist issues and campaigning is studied in three periods – the inter-war period, the Second World War and its immediate aftermath, and the 1950s and 1960s. The first two periods have previously been studied on a national level but, until recently, the post-Second World war era has been written off as overwhelmingly domestic and therefore unconstructive to the achievement of any feminist aims. This study suggests that, at a local level, this is not the case and that other conclusions reached about twentieth century feminism at a national level are not always applicable to the local context. The study also goes further than attempting to track interest in equality feminism in the mid years of the century by discussing the importance of citizenship campaigns and the social dimension of membership of women’s organisations.
    [Show full text]
  • Supplement Agenda
    Public Document Pack ADDITIONAL / TO FOLLOW AGENDA ITEMS This is a supplement to the original agenda and includes reports that are additional to the original agenda or which were marked ‘to follow’. NOTTINGHAM CITY COUNCIL CITY COUNCIL Date: Monday, 22 January 2018 Time: 2.00 pm Place: Council House, Old Market Square Governance Officer: Laura Wilson, Senior Governance Officer Direct Dial: 0115 8764301 AGENDA Pages 9 NOTTINGHAM CITY COUNCIL RESPONSE TO THE DRAFT 3 - 70 RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE LGBCE WARD BOUNDARY REVIEW Report of the Leader This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 9 CITY COUNCIL - 22 January 2018 REPORT OF THE LEADER OF THE COUNCIL NOTTINGHAM CITY COUNCIL RESPONSE TO THE DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE WARD BOUNDARY REVIEW 1 SUMMARY 1.1 This report sets out a proposed Nottingham City Council response to the Draft Recommendations of the Local Government Boundary Commission for England (LGBCE) Review of Electoral Equality in Nottingham City. 1.2 Council are asked to consider counter proposals for a Warding Pattern in the City of Nottingham, for submission to the LGBCE, and provide formal endorsement. 1.3 More details of the counter proposal are set out below under Sections 6 and 7. 2 RECOMMENDATIONS 2.1 That Council accepts the Draft Recommendations of the LGBCE in respect of the following wards in the city: Aspley, Basford, Berridge, Bestwood, Bilborough, Bulwell, Bulwell Forest, Dales, Leen Valley, Lenton & Wollaton East, Mapperley, Radford, St Anns, Sherwood and Wollaton West wards. 2.2 That the Council accepts the recommendations to amendments to the LGBCE’s recommendations in relation to the proposed Park, City, New Meadows, Embankment, Arboretum, Hyson Green, Clifton North and Clifton South wards.
    [Show full text]
  • TRO 7050 Part1
    Page 1 of 20 PART I SCHEDULE 1 CONTROLLED PARKING / RESIDENTS PARKING ZONES AND PRESCRIBED HOURS Column 1 Column 2 Column 3 Column 4 Prescribed Item No. Road or Length of Road Zone Title Hours 1 ABBOTSFORD DRIVE ABBOTSFORD DRIVE AREA Mon-Sat 8am-6pm between its junction with Shelton Street and a RESIDENTS PARKING SCHEME Except Public point 15 metres north-east of its junction with Holidays Lewis Close 2 ALFRED STREET CENTRAL 3 BULLIVANT STREET 4 COMYN GARDENS 5 CURZON COURT from its junction with Northumberland Close in a westerly direction to its western extent 6 DANE CLOSE 7 FESTUS CLOSE 8 LEWIS CLOSE 9 NORTHUMBERLAND CLOSE 10 PALMERSTON GARDENS 11 PALMERSTON GARDENS ( NEW ACCESS ROAD) 12 PENRHYN CLOSE 13 THOMAS CLOSE 14 THOMAS CLOSE from the north-west boundary of No. 40 to the south-east boundary of Nos. 34 for a distance of 24 metres. 15 THOMAS CLOSE (WESTERN ACCESS ROAD) from a point 59 metres north-west of its junction with St Ann's Well Road in a westerly direction for a distance of 35 metres 16 TRUMAN CLOSE 1 ALL SAINTS' STREET ALL SAINTS AREA, RESIDENTS' Mon-Sat 9am-5pm PARKING SCHEME Except Public Holidays Nottingham City Council (City of Nottingham, Consolidation Area) (No.9) Traffic Regulation Order 2013 (TRO 7050) Page 2 of 20 PART I SCHEDULE 1 CONTROLLED PARKING / RESIDENTS PARKING ZONES AND PRESCRIBED HOURS Column 1 Column 2 Column 3 Column 4 Prescribed Item No. Road or Length of Road Zone Title Hours 2 ALL SAINTS' TERRACE 3 ARTHUR STREET 4 BURNS AVENUE 5 BURNS STREET 6 CROMWELL STREET 7 FOREST ROAD WEST 8 FRANCIS STREET
    [Show full text]
  • CARRINGTON HISTORY TRAIL Carrington Tenants and Residents Association 2010 by Terry Fry CARRINGTON HISTORY TRAIL
    CARRINGTON HISTORY TRAIL Carrington Tenants and Residents Association 2010 by Terry Fry CARRINGTON HISTORY TRAIL This town or suburb trail covers about 1½ miles and takes about 1 hour to complete. No-one knows exactly where the boundary is between Sherwood and Carrington but for the purpose of this trail we start at Bingham Road and walk south along Mansfield Road. The development of Carrington as a 6 THE NATIONAL SCHOOL 9 THE MURAL AND village begins in 1825 when a valuable Erected at the corner of Mansfield Road and THE MOSAIC freehold estate, forming a triangle Selkirk Street in 1833, the rear elevation can In the summer holidays of 2005 local school still be seen behind Joe’s Store. It was the first between Mansfield Road and Hucknall children aged from about 4 to 12 were involved school to be built in Carrington and was Road, was sold at auction. William in a project financed by a grant from 7 virtually a church school built by Ichabod Surplice, the architect who designed St Nottingham City Council. They provided Wright. In 1846 the 101 pupils were taught by drawings and helped with the vibrant painting John’s church, drew up a plan for the one master and six pupil teachers. original plots around a triangular of various buildings and landmarks in Carrington. Guidance for the mural was given market place. To the north of the by James Gant and for the mosaic by Jane market place, lace factories were built, Levick. which was the main reason for Proceed through the arch of developing the area.
    [Show full text]
  • Letter Template
    My Ref: IG-14698 Your Ref: Contact: Freedom of Information Team Email: [email protected] Freedom of Information Team Information Compliance Legal & Governance 2nd Floor Loxley House Station Street Nottingham Requester NG2 3NG At contact address specified for request number above Tel: 0115 876 4376 Email: [email protected] www.nottinghamcity.gov.uk 26 March 2021 Dear Requester Request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) The council has considered your request which was received on 26 February 2021 and our response to your questions is shown below. This week new barriers were installed at Park Road / Lenton Road on the Lenton / Park Estate boundary. I’d like to seek the information you have on how these came to be installed please. The barriers were installed following complaints from the Park Estate, neighbouring residents and other users of this path linking Park Road with Lenton Road. The path is at the boundary of the Castle and Lenton and Wollaton East wards. These complaints have been ongoing since September 2019. Following the initial complaints officers carried out site observations and discussed the proposals with the Council’s Rights of Way Officer. It is also worth bearing in mind that this path is not public highway or a legal cycle route, it is designated a public footpath and is part of the Park Estate. Cyclist have permission to use the path from the owners, The Park Estate Limited. This does not include motorbikes or mopeds. The Council’s primary objective here was to safeguard the legal users of the public footpath, i.e.
    [Show full text]
  • CENTENARY INDEX to the TRANSACTIONS of the THOROTON SOCIETY of NOTTINGHAMSHIRE Volumes 1 - 100 1897-1997
    CENTENARY INDEX To the TRANSACTIONS OF THE THOROTON SOCIETY of NOTTINGHAMSHIRE Volumes 1 - 100 1897-1997 Together with the THOROTON SOCIETY RECORD SERIES Volumes I - XL 1903-1997 and the THOROTON SOCIETY EXCAVATION SECTION Annual Reports1936-40 Compiled by LAURENCE CRAIK ã COPYRIGHT THOROTON SOCIETY AND COMPILER ISBN 0 902719 19X INTRODUCTION The Thoroton Society began to publish the 'Transactions' in 1897. This volume is intended as an Centenary index to all material published in the 'Transactions' from 1897 to 1996, to the contents of the Record Series volumes published from 1903 to 1997, and to the reports of the Excavation Section published between 1936 and 1940. Earlier indexes were published in 1951 and 1977; these are now superseded by this new Centenary index. Contents The index is in two parts: an author index, and an index to subjects, periods, and places. AUTHOR: this lists articles under the names of their authors or editors, giving the full title, volume number and page numbers. Where an article has more than one author or editor, it is listed by title under the name of each author or editor, with relevant volume and page numbers. SUBJECT: The contents of articles are indexed by subject and by place; topics of archaeological importance are also indexed by period. Cross-references are used to refer the enquirer from one form of heading to another, for example 'Abbeys' see ' Monastic houses', or from general headings such as 'Monastic houses' to the names of individual buildings. Place-names in the index are often followed by sub-headings indicating particular topics.
    [Show full text]
  • Nottingham) the Local Government Boundary Commission for England 14Th Floor Millbank Tower London SW1P 4QP
    ww.thelentoncentre.org.uk Review Officer (Nottingham) The Local Government Boundary Commission for England 14th Floor Millbank Tower London SW1P 4QP By email: [email protected] 14 January 2018 Dear Sirs Local Government Boundary Changes in Nottingham – Dunkirk and Lenton Ward I would like to comment on your draft recommendations for Nottingham City. I am writing on behalf of the Board of Trustees of the Lenton Centre of which I am the chair. The Lenton Centre is a social enterprise running a leisure centre and community centre in New Lenton with its origins in the Lenton Community Association. We have a longstanding understanding of the Lenton area through our diverse membership and many years of advocacy for the local area. The Board of Trustees has run the Lenton Centre since 2004 and sends a representative to the Council’s Area Committee 4 meetings. The Lenton Centre falls within Dunkirk and Lenton ward but also has strong links with residents and groups within the Park Estate. As well as many of our customers coming from the Park Estate, residents there also for example organise a biennial open garden trail and some of the proceeds raised for charity are always donated to the Lenton Centre. Our Board strongly disagree that Dunkirk and Lenton ward should be combined with Wollaton East and Lenton Abbey. Unlike Lenton and the Park Estate, the areas do not share a common identity and a combined area would not result in effective and convenient local government. Lenton and Dunkirk is a historic area dating back to the Domesday Book and is home to many residents from all parts of the world.
    [Show full text]
  • NHLA Newsletter June 2018.Pages
    working together ~ what we do best Volume 03 Issue 06 June 2018 NOTTINGHAMSHIRE LOCAL HISTORY ASSOCIATION NEWSLETTER 16th Annual Great Nottingham Inclosure Walk The 2018 Inclosure Walk on Sunday 1st July 2018 will start near Wilford Toll Bridge, at 1.30pm. Meet at the Meadows Embankment tram stop, Clifton Line. The walk will be led by JOHN PARKER, Chair of NOTTINGHAMSHIRE LOCAL HISTORY ASSOCIATION This walk goes through all the Recreation Grounds allotted to the townsfolk when their commonable Fields and Meadows were enclosed to give more space for desperately needed housing. No other town in Britain has anything like it. Much of this ground was laid out as walks but there was also recognition that cricket and other team games and events needed to be catered for as well as play-space; the regular Sunday walks of the family were just as important for the Town’s health. The walk finishes at the Inclosure Oaks, (yes, there are now two), on the Forest, where a certificate will be presented to those completing the route. Guides will be available to buy on the day, or from the tourist centre, for your future use. The Forest cafe will be open at the end, highly recommended. The latest newsletter from the National Association of Mining Heritage Organisation (NAMHO) which includes an article on the East Midlands Coalmining Heritage Forum (EMCHF) is available from the WELCOME page of our website: nlha.org.uk NOTTINGHAMSHIRE LOCAL HISTORY ASSOCIATION !1 working together ~ what we do best Volume 03 Issue 06 June 2018 ! ! ! ! !!!!The!First!Siege!of!Newark!:!1218!
    [Show full text]
  • Report of Consultation Issues & Options Cover
    Nottingham City land and planningDecem policies Development Plan Document Report of Consultation for the Issues and Option and Additional Sites Consultations September 2013 Contents Page INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................... 4 APPENDIX 1 – COMMENTS RECEIVED AT THE ISSUES AND OPTIONS CONSULTATION STAGE ON DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT POLICIES.............................................................. 7 CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 8 CHAPTER 2: WHAT IS THE LAPP DPD? ............................................................................................. 10 CHAPTER 3 – STRONG AND DIVERSE ECONOMY ................................................................................ 15 CHAPTER 4: MIXED AND BALANCED COMMUNITIES .......................................................................... 29 CHAPTER 5: REJUVENATING NEIGHBOURHOODS ............................................................................... 62 CHAPTER 6: ATTRACTIVE AND SAFE NEIGHBOURHOODS .................................................................. 70 CHAPTER 7: HEALTHY NEIGHBOURHOODS AND A THRIVING NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ................. 77 CHAPTER 8: COMBATING CLIMATE CHANGE LOCALLY ................................................................... 91 CHAPTER 9: WELL CONNECTED NEIGHBOURHOODS ........................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Nottingham) the Local Government Boundary Commission for England 14Th Floor Millbank Tower London SW1P 4QP
    Monday 22nd January 2018 Review Officer (Nottingham) The Local Government Boundary Commission for England 14th Floor Millbank Tower London SW1P 4QP Dear Review Officer I would like to comment on your draft recommendations for Nottingham City. I live in the current ward of Dunkirk and Lenton. I am a primary school teacher, chair of a residents’ association and also a community representative at the Area 4 Committee. I strongly disagree that the ward of Dunkirk and Lenton should be combined with Wollaton East and Lenton Abbey. I also disagree with the recommendations for single member wards in other parts of Nottingham City. This could leave a community reliant on an ineffective councillor and without a voice to speak for them. I believe the ideal is a 2-councillor or 3- councillor ward which ensures accountability but also a choice for residents who need assistance. A 2-member ward often involves 1 female and 1 male councillor which I believe serves the population well. I was born in Lenton to a Jewish father who escaped Nazi Germany in the 1930s and later married my mother in 1970. I now live in the same house my late parents raised me in. The area in which I was raised was home to other refugees like my father and many residents from Poland, Italy, the West Indies and the Sub Continent as well as indigenous English. Similarly, the Park Estate was also home to Jewish refugees and other international residents. Today, both areas continue to be home to residents from all over the world.
    [Show full text]
  • 9 September 2014 Dear Sir/Madam You Are Hereby Summoned to Attend a Meeting of the Broxtowe Borough Council to Be Held on Wednes
    9 September 2014 Dear Sir/Madam You are hereby summoned to attend a meeting of the Broxtowe Borough Council to be held on Wednesday 17 September 2014 in the New Council Chamber, Town Hall, Beeston commencing at 7:00pm. Yours faithfully Chief Executive To: Members of the Council A G E N D A 1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE 2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST Members are requested to declare the existence and nature of any disclosable pecuniary interest and/or other interest in any item on the agenda. 3. MINUTES PAGES 1 - 8 To take as read and approve as a correct record the minutes of the Council meeting held on 23 July 2014. 4. MAYOR’S ANNOUNCEMENTS 5. PRESENTATION OF PETITIONS 6. PUBLIC QUESTIONS 7. MEMBERS’ QUESTIONS 8. PORTFOLIO HOLDERS’ REPORTS Housing and Strategic Planning Portfolio PAGES 9 - 12 Community Safety Portfolio PAGES 13 - 15 Resources Portfolio PAGES 16 - 21 Environment Portfolio PAGES 22 - 25 Bringing People Together Portfolio PAGES 26 - 32 Jobs and Business Growth Portfolio PAGES 33 - 34 9. YOUTH MAYOR’S REPORT ON BROXTOWE YOUTH COUNCIL ACTIVITIES 10. ANNUAL REVIEW OF SCRUTINY In accordance with standing order 52(5) the annual review of scrutiny is circulated separately with the agenda for the Council’s consideration. 11. MEMBERS’ SPEECHES ON WARD ISSUES 12. MEMBERS’ REPORTS ON OUTSIDE BODIES PAGES 35 - 41 To update members on the work of members who represent the Council on outside bodies. 13. EASTWOOD, GREASLEY AND NUTHALL PAGES 42 - 52 APPLICATIONS FOR NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN AREA DESIGNATION The applications seek approval for the designation of the whole of Eastwood Parish, Greasley Parish and Nuthall Parish as appropriate for the respective Town and Parish Councils to prepare a Neighbourhood Plan.
    [Show full text]
  • Aligned Core Strategy
    Greater Nottingham Broxtowe Borough Gedling Borough Nottingham City Aligned Core Strategies Part 1 Local Plan Adopted September 2014 Contact Details: Broxtowe Borough Council Foster Avenue Beeston Nottingham NG9 1AB Tel: 0115 9177777 [email protected] www.broxtowe.gov.uk/corestrategy Gedling Borough Council Civic Centre Arnot Hill Park Arnold Nottingham NG5 6LU Tel: 0115 901 3757 [email protected] www.gedling.gov.uk/gedlingcorestrategy Nottingham City Council LHBOX52 Planning Policy Team Loxley House Station Street Nottingham NG2 3NG Tel: 0115 876 3973 [email protected] www.nottinghamcity.gov.uk/corestrategy General queries about the process can also be made to: Greater Nottingham Growth Point Team Loxley House Station Street Nottingham NG2 3NG Tel 0115 876 2561 [email protected] www.gngrowthpoint.com Alternative Formats All documentation can be made available in alternative formats or languages on request. Contents Working in Partnership to Plan for Greater Nottingham 1 1.1 Working in Partnership to Plan for Greater Nottingham 1 1.2 Why the Councils are Working Together 6 1.3 The Local Plan (formerly Local Development Framework) 6 1.4 Sustainability Appraisal 9 1.5 Habitats Regulations Assessment 10 1.6 Equality Impact Assessment 11 The Future of Broxtowe, Gedling and Nottingham City in the Context of Greater Nottingham 13 2.1 Key Influences on the Future of the Plan Area 13 2.2 The Character of the Plan Area 13 2.3 Spatial Vision 18 2.4 Spatial Objectives 20 2.5 Links to Sustainable Community
    [Show full text]