Ecology of Map Lin Sands
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Whose River? London and the Thames Estuary, 1960-2014* Vanessa Taylor Univ
This is a post-print version of an article which will appear The London Journal, 40(3) (2015), Special Issue: 'London's River? The Thames as a Contested Environmental Space'. Accepted 15 July 2015. Whose River? London and the Thames Estuary, 1960-2014* Vanessa Taylor Univ. of Greenwich, [email protected] I Introduction For the novelist A.P. Herbert in 1967 the problem with the Thames was simple. 'London River has so many mothers it doesn’t know what to do. ... What is needed is one wise, far- seeing grandmother.’1 Herbert had been campaigning for a barrage across the river to keep the tide out of the city, with little success. There were other, powerful claims on the river and numerous responsible agencies. And the Thames was not just ‘London River’: it runs for over 300 miles from Gloucestershire to the North Sea. The capital’s interdependent relationship with the Thames estuary highlights an important problem of governance. Rivers are complex, multi-functional entities that cut across land-based boundaries and create interdependencies between distant places. How do you govern a city that is connected by its river to other communities up and downstream? Who should decide what the river is for and how it should be managed? The River Thames provides a case study for exploring the challenges of governing a river in a context of changing political cultures. Many different stories could be told about the river, as a water source, drain, port, inland waterway, recreational amenity, riverside space, fishery, wildlife habitat or eco-system. -
Setting the Council Tax 2017/18;
COUNCIL – 21 February 2017 Item 12 SETTING THE COUNCIL TAX 2017/18 1 SUMMARY 1.1 This report seeks authorisation from Council to set the Council Tax for the year 2017/18. 2 INTRODUCTION 2.1 At the Council Meeting held on 14 February 2017, the Council agreed the revenue budget for 2017/18 within the Medium Term Financial Strategy (MTFS) and Council agreed to increase Council Tax by 1.95%, making an average Band D property charge £217.17. 2.2 In order to set the Council Tax, information is required from Essex County Council, Police and Crime Commissioner, Essex Fire Authority and the Parish and Town Councils. This information is provided in appendices A to E. 3 2017/18 COUNCIL TAX 3.1 When publishing Council Tax figures for local authority areas, it is usual practice to use the Band D charge and an average charge for the Parish/Town Council tax. The 2017/18 charge compared to 2016/17 is shown below:- 2016/17 2017/18 Increase Increase £ £ £ % Essex County Council 1,108.35 1,108.35 - - Essex County Council Social Care Levy 21.78 55.35 33.57 3.00 Essex Fire Authority 67.68 69.03 1.35 1.99 Police & Crime Commissioner 152.10 157.05 4.95 3.25 Town/Parish Councils 41.07 44.39 3.32 8.09 Rochford District Council 213.02 217.17 4.15 1.95 Total 1,604.00 1,651.34 3.2 While the average Band D Charge for the District is £217.17, this will vary across the District due to the differences in the Town/Parish Councils. -
Weekly List of Planing Applications
LIST OF PLANNING APPLICATIONS RECEIVED WEEK ENDING: 16th April 2021 The following applications have been received by the Council. Any persons or organisations wishing to make comments on these applications should do so in writing to Marcus Hotten, Assistant Director of Place & Environment, Main Reception Council Offices, South Street, Rochford, SS4 1BW within 18 days of the date of this list. (Planning applications for review relate to: Full planning permission (FUL), Change Of Use (COU),Listed Building (LBC), Advertisement (ADV), Lawfulness Existing only (LDC)). Members should contact the Planning Officers if they consider there would be justification for a Member site visit concerning any particular Committee Item listed herein, prior to the application being considered at Committee. This should be done within the next 14 days. Copies of the applications and plans may be inspected at the above address during normal office hours. _____________________________________________________ 20/00843/FUL Parish: Rochford Parish Council Ward: Roche South Responsibility: Committee/Weekly List; Officer: Ms Katie Ellis Proposal: Proposal for construction of 3no. 1 bed Flats including parking and ancillary areas. Determination 9th June 2021 Date Location: Land Rear Of 77 West Street Rochford Grid Reference Easting 587313 Northing 190491 Applicant: Mr M Bullock Agent: Mr Jason Hopkins 22 Lime Avenue 170 Rawreth Lane Leigh-on-sea Rayleigh Essex SS69RN United Kingdom Ward Cllr(s): Cllr M J Lucas-Gill Cllr M J Steptoe Cllr A L Williams _____________________________________________________ -
Profile for the Parishes Of
Profile for the Parishes of St. Nicholas with St Mary’s Great Wakering Foulness and All Saints with St Mary’s Barling Magna Little Wakering The Profile for the Parishes of Great Wakering with Foulness Island and Barling Magna with Little Wakering 1.0 INTRODUCTION The Priest-in-Charge of our parishes since 2008 has recently assumed the additional role of Priest-in-Charge of the nearby parish of St Andrews Rochford with Sutton and Shopland and taken up residence in the Rochford Rectory. We are looking for an Associate Priest and Team Vicar designate to live in the Great Wakering Vicarage and to work with our Priest-in-charge in the care, support and development of all the parishes. This is a response to the ‘Re-imagining Ministry’ document passed by the Diocesan Synod in March 2013. Our Parishes are close to Shoeburyness and Southend-on-sea. Both have good rail links to London, which is about an hour away and used by commuters. Shoeburyness has the historic Shoebury Garrison, now vacated by the army and re-developed as a residential village which retains the original character. Shoeburyness also has two popular beach areas for bathing, walking or water sports. There are a number of shops and businesses and an Asda supermarket which is served by a bus from Great Wakering. Southend-on Sea is the nearest town. It has two commuter rail lines and an expanding airport. It has the usual High Street stores and new library and university buildings in the town centre. Its long pier is a local attraction and renowned as the longest pleasure pier in the world. -
The Arup Journal
THE ARUP JOURNAL 25TH YEAR SPRING 1990 THEARUP Foreword Povl Ahm JOURNAL Chairman Ove Arup Partnership Vol.25 No.1 Spring 1990 Editor: David J. Brown Published by Art Editor: Ove Arup Partnership Desmond Wyeth FCSD 13 Fitzroy Street, Deputy Editor: London W1 P 680 Caroline Lucas Contents Foreword, The Arup Journal is now beginning its 25th year. It is difficult to believe, since by Povl Ahm 2 it seems only yesterday that Peter Dunican wrote his 'personal view' on the occasion of 10 years of the Journal. At least it seems only yesterday to me. Structural engineering: To some of our younger members it may seem like an eternity. some social and political implications, Sadly, Peter is not here to help to celebrate the birthday of what was so by Peter Dunican 3 definitely his baby. His love for communication and his commitment to this publication was essential for the creation of The Arup Journal in the first Stansted Airport Terminal: instance, and for its continued existence and growth over most of its life. the structure, Fortunately, he has not been alone in this effort. Rosemary Devine saw The by Jack Zunz, Martin Manning, Arup Journal through its first difficult years. Then Peter Haggett took over as David Kaye and Chris Jofeh 7 Editor in September 1968 and managed the difficult task of not only Liffey Valley Bridge, maintaining the high standard that had been set from the beginning, but in by Bill Smyth and John Higgins 16 fact developing and improving it through almost 20 years in charge. -
This Document Has Been Created by AHDS History and Is Based on Information Supplied by the Depositor
This document has been created by AHDS History and is based on information supplied by the depositor SN 3980 - Agricultural Census Parish Summaries, 1877 and 1931 This study contained a limited amount of documentation. The parish codes given below are to be used to interpret the data for the year of 1877. The parish codes for the 1931 data were not given in the initial deposit; consequently it is not possible to establish the parish of origin for the 1931 data. -
Explosive Ordnance Threat Assessment for Future Works
Explosive Ordnance Threat Assessment for Future Works Site: MoD Beach & Park Garrison Site, Shoeburyness Client: Southend-on-Sea Borough Council Ref: 6180TA Rev-3 Date: 27th November 2015 Dynasafe BACTEC Limited Make the world a safer place 9, Waterside Court, Galleon Boulevard, Crossways Business Park, Dartford, Kent, DA2 6NX, UK Office: +44 (0) 1322 284 550 www.bactec.com www.dynasafe.com Southend-on-Sea Borough Council Explosive Ordnance Desktop Threat Assessment for Future Works This document was written by, belongs to and is copyright to Dynasafe BACTEC Limited. It contains valuable Dynasafe BACTEC Limited proprietary and confidential information which is disclosed only for the purposes of the client’s assessment and evaluation of the project which is the subject of this report. The contents of this document shall not, in whole or in part (i) be used for any other purposes except such assessment and evaluation of the project; (ii) be relied upon in any way by the person other than the client (iii) be disclosed to any member of the client’s organisation who is not required to know such information nor to any third party individual, organisation or government, or (iv) be copied or stored in any retrieval system nor otherwise be reproduced or transmitted in any form by photocopying or any optical, electronic, mechanical or other means, without prior written consent of the Managing Director, Dynasafe BACTEC Limited, 9 Waterside Court, Galleon Boulevard, Crossways Business Park, Dartford, Kent, DA2 6NX, United Kingdom to whom all requests should be sent. Accordingly, no responsibility or liability is accepted by Dynasafe BACTEC towards any other person in respect of the use of this document or reliance on the information contained within it, except as may be designated by law for any matter outside the scope of this document. -
Southend-On-Sea to Wallasea Island Report SWI 3: Little Wakering to Sutton Ford Bridge
www.gov.uk/englandcoastpath England Coast Path Stretch: Southend-on-Sea to Wallasea Island Report SWI 3: Little Wakering to Sutton Ford Bridge Part 3.1: Introduction Start Point: Little Wakering (grid reference: TQ 9316 8897) End Point: Sutton Ford Bridge, Rochford (grid reference: TQ 8832 8963) Relevant Maps: SWI 3a to SWI 3f 3.1.1 This is one of a series of linked but legally separate reports published by Natural England under section 51 of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949, which make proposals to the Secretary of State for improved public access along and to this stretch of coast between Southend-on- Sea and Wallasea Island. 3.1.2 This report covers length SWI 3 of the stretch, which is the coast between Little Wakering and Sutton Ford Bridge. It makes free-standing statutory proposals for this part of the stretch, and seeks approval for them by the Secretary of State in their own right under section 52 of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949. 3.1.3 The report explains how we propose to implement the England Coast Path (“the trail”) on this part of the stretch, and details the likely consequences in terms of the wider ‘Coastal Margin’ that will be created if our proposals are approved by the Secretary of State. Our report also sets out: any proposals we think are necessary for restricting or excluding coastal access rights to address particular issues, in line with the powers in the legislation; and any proposed powers for the trail to be capable of being relocated on particular sections (“roll- back”), if this proves necessary in the future because of coastal change. -
Managing the Coast
Managing the coast Essex and South Suffolk Shoreline Management Plan 2 Landguard Point (Felixstowe) to Two Tree Island (Southend) Non-technical summary of final plan 2010 Front cover images: (top left) Harwich and Felixstowe Ports, (top right) Clacton Pier, © Mike Page, 2008 (bottom left) Naze Tower, (bottom right) Salcott Creek saltmarshes Back cover image: Frinton-on-Sea, © Mike Page, 2008 Reproduced by permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of HMSO. © Crown Copyright and database right 2010. All rights reserved. Ordnance Survey licence number 100026380. © Environment Agency Contents What is a Shoreline Management Plan? 4 How we developed the plan 4 - The partnership 4 - Finding the right balance 5 - How we involved you 7 An overview of the Essex and South Suffolk coast 8 How we divided the coast 10 How we will manage the coast - Stour and Orwell Estuaries 14 - Hamford Water 18 - Tendring Peninsula 21 - Colne Estuary and Mersea Island 23 - Blackwater Estuary 27 - Dengie Peninsula 31 - Crouch and Roach Estuaries, Potton, Rushley and 33 Foulness Islands and Southend frontage What happens next 38 Where to go for more information 39 Glossary 41 Essex and South Suffolk Shoreline Management Plan 3 Introduction What is a Shoreline Management Plan? A Shoreline Management Plan (SMP) identifies the best ways to manage flood and erosion risk to people and the developed, historic and natural environment in the short, medium and long-term. The overall aim of the plan is to support the best possible balance of all values and features which will create opportunities to work with others and make improvements. Approximately 10 years ago the first round of SMPs were completed for the entire length of the coastline of England and Wales. -
This Application Is in Outline Form with All Matters Reserved at This Stage
Rochford District Council SCHEDULE OF PLANNING APPLICATIONS TO BE CONSIDERED BY PLANNING COMMITTEE 29th August 2002 All planning applications are considered against the background of current Town and Country Planning legislation, rules, orders and circulars, and any development, structure and locals plans issued or made thereunder. In addition, account is taken of any guidance notes, advice and relevant policies issued by statutory authorities. Each planning application included in this Schedule is filed with representations received and consultation replies as a single case file. The above documents can be made available for inspection as Committee background papers at the office of Planning Services, Acacia House, East Street, Rochford. If you require a copy of this document in larger print, please contact the Planning Administration Section on 01702 – 318191. PLANNING SERVICES COMMITTEE - 29th August 2002 BARLING AND SUTTON Cllr R S Allen FOULNESS AND GREAT WAKERING Cllr T E Goodwin Cllr C G Seagers Cllr Mrs B J Wilkins HAWKWELL NORTH Cllr M A Starke Cllr M G B Starke ROCHFORD Cllr R A Amner Mrs L Barber Cllr Mrs M S Vince WHEATLEY Cllr J M Pullen Cllr Mrs M J Webster WHITHOUSE Cllr S P Smith Cllr P F A Webster - 2 - PLANNING COMMITTEE 29th August 2002 REFERRED ITEMS R1 02/00296/COU Christopher Board PAGE 5 Change of Use of Agricultural Land to Football and Cricket Pitch Use Land at Pelhams Farm Hall Road Rochford R2 02/00496/OUT Kevin Steptoe PAGE 10 Outline Application to Erect New Sports Pavillion With First Floor Offices (Demolish -
Seascape Character Assessment Report
Seascape Character Assessment for the South East Inshore marine plan area MMO 1134: Seascape Character Assessment for the South East Inshore marine plan area September 2018 Report prepared by: Land Use Consultants (LUC) Project funded by: European Maritime Fisheries Fund (ENG1595) and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Version Author Note 0.1 Sally Marshall First draft desk-based report completed May 2015 Kate Ahern 1.0 Kate Ahern Updated draft final report following stakeholder consultation, August 2018 1.1 Chris Graham, MMO Comments David Hutchinson 2.0 Kate Ahern Final report, September 2018 2.1 Chris Sweeting Independent QA © Marine Management Organisation 2018 You may use and re-use the information featured on this website (not including logos) free of charge in any format or medium, under the terms of the Open Government Licence. Visit www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government- licence/ to view the licence or write to: Information Policy Team The National Archives Kew London TW9 4DU Email: [email protected] Information about this publication and further copies are available from: Marine Management Organisation Lancaster House Hampshire Court Newcastle upon Tyne NE4 7YH Tel: 0300 123 1032 Email: [email protected] Website: www.gov.uk/mmo Disclaimer This report contributes to the Marine Management Organisation (MMO) evidence base which is a resource developed through a large range of research activity and methods carried out by both MMO and external experts. The opinions expressed in this report do not necessarily reflect the views of MMO nor are they intended to indicate how MMO will act on a given set of facts or signify any preference for one research activity or method over another. -
Appendix F – Shoreline Interactions & Response
Appendix F Shoreline Interactions & Responses Final version 2.4 15 October 2010 Essex and South Suffolk SMP2 -Fi - Appendix F – Shoreline Interactions & Response Final version 2.4 15 October 2010 CONTENTS Page F1. INTRODUCTION 1 F2. DEVELOP BASELINE SCENARIOS 1 F2.1 Introduction 1 F2.1.1 Aim 1 F2.1.2 Geographical units 2 F2.1.3 Task methodology 2 F2.1.4 Sea level rise 6 F2.1.5 Assumptions and general notes 6 F2.1.6 Tables layout 7 F2.2 Frontage A - Stour and Orwell Estuaries 8 F2.3 Frontage B - Hamford Water 23 F2.4 Frontage C – Tendring Peninsula 34 F2.5 Frontage D - Colne Estuary 46 F2.6 Frontage E – Mersea Island 57 F2.7 Frontage F - Blackwater Estuary 64 F2.8 Frontage G - Dengie Flat 75 F2.9 Frontage H - Crouch and Roach Estuaries 86 F2.10 Frontage I - Foulness Island 96 F2.11 Frontage J - Southend-on-Sea and Shoebury 106 F3. ASSESSMENT OF COASTAL DEFENCES 117 F3.1 Introduction 117 F3.2 Residual Life 118 F3.2.1 SMP Guidance 118 F3.2.2 Essex and South Suffolk SMP Approach – ‘Estimated Unmaintained Life’ 118 F3.2.3 Approach for non-EA defences 121 F3.2.4 Assumptions and Considerations 122 F3.3 Validation by Asset Managers and Operations Delivery 124 F3.4 RESULTS 125 F3.4.1 Referencing of the defences 125 F3.4.2 Assessment 125 F3.4.3 Discussion 126 F4. COASTAL RISK MAPS 136 F4.1 Introduction 136 F4.2 Stour and Orwell 137 F4.2.1 General description 137 F4.2.2 Key estuarine processes and issues 137 F4.2.3 Zones of erosion and accretion 138 F4.2.4 Opportunities 139 F4.3 Hamford Water 140 F4.3.1 General description 140 F4.3.2 Key estuarine